From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 18:55:13 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates > : otherwise. > > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be > assumed to be literal history. You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for example, as actual history (see https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly historically false meaning) was worth mentioning! And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is important. But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even plausible medrashim is irrelevant. > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions > via mashal and melitzah. > > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us > license to ignore paragraphs of writing. But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, after invoking Mishlei, reads, ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the predicate of the sentence, and you translate it: ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah and mashal.'' But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the passage translates: for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah and mashal. Which did the Rambam mean? Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty matters. There he phrases the thought: V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL] through remazim. What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing preference, but that's what he says!) This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3). So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports irrelevant. Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important. Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that, einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/. [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/ nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar, or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar. I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/, and /not in any nigleh/ from it. --Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is (nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim. So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a (non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all. Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass ?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the masses.? Many other such examples can be found. Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual. When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is important. > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam > : doesn't care whether it's historically so? > >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am > willing to entertain anything. > > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in > as well as > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to > mention historical evidence. None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events. If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does not come from these paragraphs of writing. > ... > > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon > haQodesh. That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be hidden from the masses. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 1 19:31:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. : : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: : /Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason to insist one way or the other for any story. Yes, the Rambam personally concluded that some stories, eg one version of Avraham's biography, or the story of dor Enosh, ought to be taken literally. But not because of any general rule about stories that don't violate nature or reason. Because they have enough value as-is for the Rambam to believe they were told for a valuable historical lesson. Limiting the set of nimshalim says nothing about the set of meshalim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:39 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2018 22:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102033148.GC16003@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 1/1/2018 10:31 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal > : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u > : haChachamim a"h/ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. > : > : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to > : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their > : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the > : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to > : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their > : words/concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] > : through remazim. > : > : What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: > :/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone... > > IOW, every story that is a remez encapsulates some inuanim elokiyim. > > Which for all we know could be every aggadic story. There is no reason > to insist one way or the other for any story. It cannot be every aggadic story. The Rambam is clear (and I thought I made that clear) that the remazim he ascribes inyanim elokiyim to are specifically implausibles, to keep the concepts hidden form base people and to give women and youth material to understand when they develop enough to comprehend them. If they are not implausible, they are not hidden from the wrong people, and are not inyanim elokiyyim. And then there are the other points I made. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jont at traumatic.us Tue Jan 2 10:53:00 2018 From: jont at traumatic.us (Jonathan Traum) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Na'ar hayisi... (was Re: The Protection Offered by a Mezuza) In-Reply-To: <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> References: <2d108449-ec4d-0e35-d888-0ccdd8b113be@sero.name> <80f92bd4-b7af-1b26-1d03-0f3ce7a67edf@zahav.net.il> <20171225203023.GA9557@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <0c55f39d-8eeb-519d-f795-9ce58c5ad06a@traumatic.us> On 12/25/2017 03:30 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > You remind me of a problem I have saying a particular line of Tehillim > (37:25) with kavanah, and it comes up at the appendix to bentching, > "Naar hayisi..." But I have seen a tzadiq whose kids miss meals and have > to beg. Haven't you? A good explanation I heard is that the "I" of the passuk isn't me, the person reciting it, but rather David HaMelech who wrote it. David had the wherewithal to see to it that no tzaddik (or at least, none that he was made aware of) would not be taken care of. We say the passuk to remind us that although we may not have the same resources that he had, we must still do what we can. Jonathan From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:43:16 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we > could tell a particular non truth to our children and X% > would stay frum but if we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would > stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any) would being > not truthful be required and/or preferred? Please note that his precise question contrasts telling a non-truth vs telling the truth. In the real world one also has the option of silence, and this is a critical point. Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. (1) Megilla 25 lists several parshios which may be read publicly, but only without the Targum, for various reasons. And then there's another category of parshios that may not be read publicly at all. (2) Chagiga 2:1 ("Ain Dorshin") lists certain topics that may be taught only in small groups, and others that may not be taught at all, even one-on-one. The l'maaseh application of those rules can be discussed another time. My point for now, is that we seem to have strong precedent for the withholding of certain truths. In contrast, telling a non-truth could constitute Ziyuf HaTorah, a falsification of the Torah, which I have heard to be a Y'hareg V'al Yaavor. There are many examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is Megilla 9a, where they were forced to translate the Torah into Greek. The Gemara shows that they made some minor changes, but none of them were blatant falsifications of the Torah. So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, then please give a more concrete example.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:49:12 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in > any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The posthumous volumes were created not only from notes that his family found around the house and beis medrash, but mostly from personal teshuvos that outsiders mailed to the family. It could well be that Rav Moshe did indeed change his mind, but left no written evidence to that effect, except for a very few private teshuvos (perhaps only one) that had not been sent to the family until now. Akiva Miller From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Jan 2 06:56:05 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 09:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Cohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d383d9$d457ebb0$7d07c310$@com> ..One is in Eretz Yisrael and dovens shacharis in a minyan which often does not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable? Certainly not required. Otherwise it would asur for that reason alone to skip minyan and doven b'yechidus in EY. Even to doven Neitz b'yechidus wbe asur. And I don't see this issue mentioned in the poskim that discuss the req't to doven with a minyan ..If he isn't required, is it preferable? It w seem so. A brocha from Hashem is a very valuable thing. (if you can't go, then it w be no different than pple in the fields that do get the brocha even though they are not in shul) Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 12:33:52 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm... You're right. I didn't notice that it was dated Elul 1971. Akiva Miller On Jan 2, 2018 3:17 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > >> . >> R' Zev Sero wrote: >> >>> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >>> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. >>> >> > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The >> posthumous volumes >> > > Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. > > > -- > Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all > zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 2 12:17:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 15:17:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02/01/18 06:49, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > . > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in >> any of the three volumes of IM that he published after this date. > I was wondering this too. I suspect the answer to be this: The > posthumous volumes Are irrelevant. I did not ask or wonder about them. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 2 13:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> (To catch up RSM, who I CC-ed, RZL and I are arguing about how to understand the Rambam's position on the historicity of aggadita. The part I could use your help with is in his description of the 3td kat. See below.) On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 09:55:13PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's : plausible reports of events principally for "a literal point worth : making," and not because he assumed them to be actual historical : events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports : of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3)... Thinking about your example for a minute: The story of the Chanukah oil might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the story in the Yad, no? : https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ I fail to see the relevency of any of this first piece of your post. You are arguing as thought I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic story ahistorical. What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open to personal opinion. I have gone further and noted the implication of the notion that history isn't the point of the story that spending all this time worried about historicity is itself against the Rambam's description of what medrash is about. We shouldn't even bother honing a position about when a medrashic story is historical or not; Chazal didn't care that much, why should we? ... : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were : really reports of dreams and which were not... He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching things that were disproven philosophically. : But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that : plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to : imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports : is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even : plausible medrashim is irrelevant. Which presupposes your answer on the question you raise next: : l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim : hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. Me, as correctly summarized by RZL: : "for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." RZL's take: : for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". (Side-note: I believe "tachlis" here refers to THE ultimate concern. As in, out tachlis as human beings, lefi shitaso.) So, I CC-ed RSM, in case he has time to check the original Judeo-Arabic for us. Let's go back to haqdamah to Cheileq, since your quote is only of part of what I discussed. Earlier in the description of the 3rd kat the Rambam talks about "mimah shenimtzah bikhlal, divreihem morim al inyanim amitiyum me'od". You agree that mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's ALL deep stuff. (To the Rambam, apparently, someone who qualifies as a Mishlei-style chakham wouldn't be discussing anything else. Remez typifies "divrei Chakhamim".) But let's go on with your parallel passage: : Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama : L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all : the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty : matters. There he phrases the thought: : : V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) "lehavin mashal : umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam." Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u : haChachamim a"h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim. : : And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to : understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their : chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the : undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to : develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their : words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not "all their words"--ZL] : through remazim. Except that what makes it into aggadita IS inyanim elokiyim, and not their discussion of snake gestation periods for the scientific value of it. In any case, the copy at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/6-2.htm continues after the quote from Mishlei with: Umipenei eilu hasibos, sideru hachakhamim a"h divreihem bidrashos al inyan sheyarchikahu sekhel hakesil lefi machavto. It happens not to have anything about inyanim elokiyim. Just that they are teachings fools will misunderstand so badly that they would be better off not being given misleading hints. But again, to really get to this topic, that diyuq is irrelevent because to get to our point we don't need sources about the topics of the nimshalim. We need sources from the Rambam saying they ever write in the gemara anything but those topics, and thus there could be stories that needn't be of the mashal - nimshal sort. AND, we need to separate the question of what is mashal from what is historic. After all, a historical story could be retold for its mashal value. In fact, I am saying it always is; which is why we can't pick out the historical vs ahistorical by any rule. Nor should we be worried overly much about the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:58:50 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . I asked why so many Tanachs and Siddurim print "merchavyah" as two words, when the Gemara clearly says that it is one word. (Or at least, that's how RSR Hirsch reads that gemara.) R' Zev Sero answered: > For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... I acknowledge that this question is a legitimate one; after all, it was asked by the Gemara itself. Further, I do not want to cast aspersions on the Baalei Mesorah. But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? I concede that the Baalei Mesorah were experts in their field. What I can't "wrap my head around" is the idea that we would follow them, and cast aside the psak of R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba. Was their expertise less than that of Ben Asher? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Jan 2 21:57:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:57:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Withholding a truth is very different than telling a non-truth. > (Snip) > > So my answer to RJR would be that his thought experiment will not > occur in reality. It is not a binary choice of telling a truth or > telling a fiction. There are many approaches in the middle, such that > one can craft his speech into something positive. (If RJR disagrees, > then please give a more concrete example.) > > -2--////-//// Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From mandels at ou.org Wed Jan 3 06:06:43 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:06:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <20180102232243.GC11128@aishdas.org> , <20180103110955.GA15356@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas. The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words, and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal are not interested in telling historical facts. Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet, as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar, and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it. So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred historically. Chazal are not interested in teaching history. However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened, as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested in the dates. In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim," unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:12:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Foreshadow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103201216.GA13388@aishdas.org> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 09:57:46PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Is the break up of the united kingdom (Israel and Yehuda) somehow : foreseen in the brothers? ... That seems to be the imiplication of choosing that particular haftarah from Yechezqeil (37:15-28) to correspond to Vayigash. As for the general question of foreshadowing... Isn't that the Ramban's "maaseh avos siman labanim, that history foreshadow's the future, and the particular description of history as Hashem retells it in the chumash doubly so? That said, I more naturally see it in terms of forward causality, rather than simanim / foreshadowing. The argument that led to the split kingdoms were caused by character traits that among their respective children became cultural traits that led to the split. Interestingly, it's Yehudah who leads the wrong side in Bereishis, but Ephraim who leads the wrong side during bayis rishon. And it's Yehudah's ability to acknowledge (which is his very name!) and Yosef's ability to forgive, which become the cultural seeds that we'll need for messianic reunification. More blatantly is Yiravam's paraphase of Aharon at the eigel. Aharon presents the eigel and says Eileh elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim Yiravam presents his two bulls with Hineih elohekha Yisrael, asher he'elukha meiEretz Mitzrayim (Interestingly, it is Yir'avam who has a plurality of bovines, but Aharon who uses the lashon rabbim of "eileh".) The eigel planted the seeds of AZ into the culture that allow for the abandonment of the real BHMQ. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:23:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103202325.GB13388@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:58:50PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: :> For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words. : : Someone else (offlist) gave me that same answer, so I clearly failed : to phrase my question clearly. Let's try again... ... : But, l'maaseh, someone who is publishing *must* choose to print it one : way or the other. Why would someone nowadays choose to follow the : manuscripts rather than an almost-unanimous opinion in the gemara? To double-down on the question, that same publisher likely writes "Hallelukah" as one word, whereas KAZ has "Hallelu-Kah", with a maqaf linking two words into one teivah. So it's not an issue of strict obediance to the Mesorah, even over Chazal. BTW, lehalakhah they could both be right. The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring something else. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:11:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] birur vs hanhaga in other legal systems In-Reply-To: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <9ec665e80cbd4e97be6b4bcc8b7221d8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180103211119.GE13388@aishdas.org> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:51:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : There's a lot of "Brisker Torah" on the differentiation between : halachically resolving doubts by birur (clarification/resolution of : doubt) versus hanhaga (we still have a doubt but must move forward while : not resolving the doubt).... Is anyone aware of : any parallels to this differentiation in other legal systems? I think the notion of birur involves the Brisker belief that a chalos sheim is ontologically a metaphysical reality. So, birur creates a "thing", not just a step in legal reasoning. In non-religious legal systems, a legal state is merely a concept to simplify explaining the law's ruling. The conceptual distinction you are asking about may be impossible to define. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 13:04:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam ,Hilchot Hannuka In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180103210449.GD13388@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : 2) The Rambam gives a long detailed description on how to properly : say Hallel in beit knesset. However the last halacha in the chapter : basically says "I've been in a lot batei knesset and everyone does : something different'. Meaning - you want to do a musical Hallel, : different tunes, no tunes, responsive, everyone together, whatever : you like - it is fine. But he bases this on metzi'us. So it would seem that you can only do a musical Hallel if enought other minyanim are doing so for it to be among the norms. You shouldn't invent your own. I realize this means you are permitted only because and after others wrongly committed poreitz geder. But that's how the Rambam's logic seems to me. : 3) The Rambam raises the possibility of a woman or child or slave : reading Hallel and everyone repeating what she or he said word by : word. However, he doesn't add in the famous curse given in the : Gemara. Meaning - the Rambam didn't hold by? Tavo Ma'arah : (spelling?) (at least not here). Actually, he is limiting the role of Maqreih when one appoins a qatan, eved or ishah.(Chanukah 3:14) The responsive style of old is only when the Maqreih is a bar chiyuvah. So I scould see two opposite alternatives to (1) your take on the Rambam: (2) He does hold of tavo me'ara very strongly, but only believes it was said about responsive reading -- to the extent that the Rambam altogether prohibits doing so. That would be having a sha"tz who isn't a bar chiyuvah. But this, this is just using a human being as a siddur. (3) The Rambam felt that tavo me'rarah was real, but didn't add much to the *halachic* discussion. There is no behavioral change between knowing you're stuck with a non-bar chiyuva helping you read and knowing exactly how bad chazal considered it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 3 12:40:52 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh -- on "min" In-Reply-To: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> References: <0C71CBB0F1E145B89D102DAA516AF81A@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180103204052.GC13388@aishdas.org> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:16:44AM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : R. Micha Berger wrote: :> Ironically, defining a "min" is not settled halakhah either. : If I am not mistaken the modern secular definition of "species" is based : on whether the populations can interbreed or not. Do we know with any : certainty that the Torah rejects this criteria as a determinant of "min"? For kelayim for animals, we use the same criterion -- can produce fertile young. For kelayim for plants (including kerem) we use an experiential measure: same name and visually similar. The dispute I referred to after the line you quoted isn't about kelayim, but ofos tehoros. When chickens are deemed kosher, does that include breeds that don't have the usually secondary signs. What if a leghorn chicken didn't shift its toe placement once comfortable? They could still interpreed with other chickens, but would they have been presumed to be included in the mesorah that chicken is kosher? The discussion appears to be "no", since we do rely on the toe shift. And the Braekel chicken? It doesn't even have the rei'usa of being occasionally doreis-footed. And yet R Moshe Sternbuch prohibits. (I think that prohibition is only possible because of a gap in knowledge of history, but that's not our question right now.) Agree or not about the metzi'us, clearly the definition of halachic category isn't settled. So, maybe only in the context of kelayim of chai (as opposed to tzomeiach) does min == species. In other contexts, it appears not to be settled halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 15:26:41 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote something that goes to the very heart of my question: > The kosher text of a seifer Torah, when there is doubt, is > based on rov of existing sifrei Torah. If the demographics > of girsa'os changed between chasimas hashas and the Baalei > Mesorah (and didn't switch back since), perhaps we follow the > new rov, despite evidence in the gemara of Chazal preferring > something else. A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow the rov. But that person is not me, because I was fortunate to have stumbled upon RSR Hirsch's perush on Tehillim, in which he pointed out the gemara to me. So to me, there is no doubt; "merchavyah" is one word. Does that make sense, or am I being obtuse? Akiva Miller From zvilampel at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 00:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 RSM wrote concerning my translation of a passage in Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Chelek: > > I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.The Rambam does not divide it in the original... At first I was bewildered by this remark. How in the world does one see I divided the Rambam into stanzas?! Then I figured it out. Those slashes are not meant to mark stanzas. They are attempts to indicate italics. Not that I meant to convey that the Rambam wrote in italics, either, but to high-lite the words I wanted to focus on. Regarding the argument RMB and I have concerning whether Chazal, when mentioning events, were interested in their historic veracity, or just the message they saw in the alleged events, RSM comments: > ... If the arguments are about > whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate, > it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively, Neither of us maintained such a thing. > ...the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear > that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact .... ...an entirely different claim, and another one which neither of us maintained. > ...is a fool because > everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the > Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal > are not interested in telling historical facts. RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant is because Chazal are not interested. Well, that's begging the question! Who said Chazal were uninterested in the historical veracity of events they reported? Again, all agree that the purpose of reporting the event was to convey a lesson they teach. But that tells you /nothing/ about whether Chazal or Rambam were interested in whether the report is true.) So the rest of the remarks are really irrelevant. > Chazal are not interested in teaching history. > > However, the Geonim had a tradition Source? > that some things that Chazal say are > historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as > the story of Chanukka. So Chazal were not interested in whether an event actually occurred, but the Geonim were, but the Rambam again was not? And from whom did the Geonim get the tradition telling them which events Chazal reported were historically true, if Chazal themselves were not interested in this matter? > He does not quote the allegories unless he is > using them for his purposes. He doesn't quote anything unless he is using it for his purposes. > He also states things that he believes > are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot > AZ. All the above about Chanuka and AZ sounds to me like special pleading. And how do you know the Rambam meant each of these as history, or that he thought that this Midrash meant it as history? On what basis did the Rambam decide that these reports were historical and not just to teach us lessons? And why did it matter to him if the Midrash's report of the development of AZ was historically true? Let him just state the lesson it teaches, the halachos, and that no rationale permits praying to heavenly objects. Why did it matter to him if the Chanuka neis actually occurred?Maybe Chazal were using metaphor to teach a lesson. Let him just tell us the halachos of lighting the licht, which symbolizes the lessons of the metaphor (or. as Josephus puts it, ''the freedom to worship had been concealed in darkness and is now brought to light.'') What the Rambam says about the three kattim and Chazal's policy of using allegory tells us /nothing/ about whether Chazal or he considered it important that their reports of events were true. Unless one gets the impression that the Rambam held they did, based upon his praise of Chazal's integrity. Me, I think that if the Rambam held that Chazal, in conveying lessons through reported plausible events, did so without regard to their truth, he would have said so. Because when a sage says something plausible happened (/especially/ if that alleged event teaches a lesson), a normal person thinks the sage means it really happened. And I think rightly so. And the Rambam's concern about whether an event was reported as a report of a dream, reinforces the notion that it mattered to him, and that he was not unconcerned about, whether it really took place (and conveyed the lesson it taught). *** Some remarks on RSM's translation of the Arabic as it relates to the translations of the Hebrew offered by RMB and me of, :????? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim :????? hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal. RSM's translation of the Arabic: "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal, is indeed metaphor and allegory." RBM's take was: : "for/all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which : form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah : and mashal." My take was: : for the words of all the wise men//concerning the lofty matters, : which form the ultimate concern,/ /are truly [expressed in] chiddah : and mashal. Upon which RBM asked: Hachakhamim kulam = all the wise men? Wouldn't that need a "kol", as in "kol hachakhamim", or for emphasis, "kol hachakhamim kulam"? But RSM too takes it as "all the scholars (or: those with wisdom)." Not that I wouldn't accept RMB's ''all the words of the sages." I can take it either way. Similar to ''eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Hayyim hein'' (whoops, I just stumbled into another machlokess RMB and I engage in perennially!...). Is it "the words of the living G-d," or "the living words of G-d"? RMM also asked, > And what do you do with the prepositional "be-" in "be'inyanim ha'elyonim" if it isn't "kulam be'inyanim ha'elyanim" -- there is no noun afterward either. I had translated the ''be,'' which means ''in,'' as ''concerning," so that the clause reads not as RMB has it, ''"forall the words of the sages are about lofty matters,'' but ''for the words of all the wise men concerning the lofty matters...'' RSM's take agrees with mine: ''because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning these elevated (or: sublime) matters...'' And thirdly, RMB critiqued my translation: > And "amnam" is not "are truly" but "but they are". Yet RSM too, translated it, "indeed." (Before I wrote my original post, I checked out this amnam with /my/ Arabic go-to man, and he wrote: The word amnam is a precise translation of the Arabic anma, and it carries the ambiguity of ?but? and ?indeed,? but in this case, I think it means ?but.?) By the way, one can get to the Arabic and Hebrew on facing pages by going here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/????:Rambam-Helek-Holzer-HB33111.pdf So again I maintain that the Rambam is telling us that Chazal presented only the inyanim elokiyyim/elyonim lessons in implausible reports. Less lofty, albeit valuable, lessons were taught in plain language, whose surface meanings of their statements were intended, but which perhaps additionally had some hidden meanings (of the non-lofty kind). But he is not addressing here whether Chazal were concerned about the historical veracity of the reports upon which they built or illustrated their lessons. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3874233 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Pages from Rambam-Helek in Arabic-Holzer-HB33111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 73632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 4 05:42:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:42:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:18:55 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha Message-ID: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an adjunct by poskim? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:19 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 05:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar Message-ID: I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor to that Rav's institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar (interested party). I couldn't help but wonder where one draws the line (i.e., why isn't it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate model?) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joel at schnurassociates.com Thu Jan 4 06:16:15 2018 From: joel at schnurassociates.com (Joel Schnur) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> References: <1515073355467.34943@stevens.edu> Message-ID: I think u made a wise decision. Now someone much younger and in better shape than us would likely choose otherwise LOL! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Professor L. Levine wrote: > > There is a major snow storm hitting the northeast today. NYC public schools are closed today, a rarity. Stevens Institute announced yesterday that the university will be closed today. There are many other closures due to the snow, cold and high winds. > > > In light of this, I ask from a Torah point of view "Should one go to shul today?" While things may not have been too bad in the early morning, they are getting worse by the hour, so should one go to shul for mincha.? It is getting really dangerous outside. > > > Davening with a minyan is as far as I know a d'rabbonim, while guarding one's health is a D'Oreisa. Does this mean that those who did go to shul should not have gone? I have no answers, just questions. > > NYC has asked that if at all possible people should stay off the road today, so I presume that all will agree that no one should not have driven to shul this morning if one went. > > > For the record, I did not go to shul this morning. Given my knee problems I have to be most careful about not falling. > > > YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 4 07:54:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 10:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Nogea Badavar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7131d780-d224-8d84-d9ad-b31be3fa2f22@sero.name> On 04/01/18 00:20, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > I recently heard a Rav say that one who is considering retirement should > not ask their local Rav about retiring if they are a major contributor > to that Rav?s institutions, due to the concept of nogea badavar > (interested party). I couldn?t help but wonder where one draws the line > (i.e., why isn?t it always a case of nogea bdvar in the paid rabbinate > model?) Since you raised the topic, I've long wondered why the entire body of psak about rabbinic tenure should not be thrown out as one giant mess of self-pleading. How can any paid rabbi (or anyone with hopes of becoming one) possibly pasken on the subject? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:43:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> References: <824202ee-9dd6-6681-af02-9d7b6e8be4ab@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104164347.GC4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:19AM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : RSM and RMB share this belief, but it has no basis in the Rambam's : words or context. (And the reasoning is circular. The reason RSM : believes Rambam would say the veracity of a reported is unimportant : is because Chazal are not interested...) 1- The Rambam says that history is unimportant. 2- and that they only discuss important things. Even if my "only the tachlis" was based on Ibn Tibon's inaccurate translation, that's not the only place he says so. 3- And that chakhamim (lower case c, including upper-case-c Chakhmeinu za"l) only discuss these things in metaphor, as we see from Mishlei. Like the next line, "Ve'eikh na'asimam al shemechaberim chokhmah al derekh mashal" -- like Shelomo did. To the Rambam, speaking in mashal umelitzah and chidah are the hallmarks of how Chakhamim communicate. That section closes by saying this rule applies to the Rambam's own work, "ve'az tistakeil besifri zeh veyo'il lakh, be"hA". It's not that deep truths are an exception from normal communication and only they are done in mashal. It's that eis la'asos Lashem, in order not to lose halakhah we need to write it down in plaintext! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:55:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] truth telling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104165543.GD4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:57:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Agree but it can also mislead. So if ur child comes home and asks about : the proof based on the Torah listing all the 4 animals that have only one : kosher sign and u say nothing.....or his rabbi told him dinosaurs didn't : exist. U can craft answers but istm as a society many subgroups don't. Most subgroups who think there are only 4 animals with one such sign and/or that dinosaurs don't exist aren't doing so to use a lie to reenforce emunah. They believe what they're teaching. So I don't think this example has much to do with the original question. This is more about not contradicting a teacher, so as to enable the child to trust what they learn of things other than emunah from them. By postponing teaching emunah. (Most of which they won't get anyway; real emunah requires more intellectual maturity. You typically teach a child to deeply believe in a Old Man in the Sky or some more subtle form of apiqursus if you try too hard to produce a young maamin.) As I see it, the key questions are: 1- Is it even possible to gain more people through a lie than will be risked because lies are eventually seen through? Does the question make sense pragmatically? And 2- Since most of us define emunah as being justified belief, rather than blind faith, does belief that is founded on a lie even qualify as emunah? I already suggested that I think it wouldn't fit the Rambam's definition, but that few of us would consider that the halakhah lemaaseh criterion. As I understand the Rambam's need for knowledge based on sound philosphical proof -- to the explicit exclusion of justification by personal experience or reliable sources, belief based on an error (even someone else's error, like if there are more than 4 minim of animals that have 1 siman) would also not be emunah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure. micha at aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence, http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei" From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 08:31:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:18:55AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Will neural networks and deep learning be used to develop an : A.I. halachic intuition? If you think not, why not? What about if neural : networks that learn to explain themselves? Should they be used as an : adjunct by poskim? I don't think so, because halakhah is hard to convert into the kind of inputs amenable to neural nets. But I've been surprised before, and besides... tech forecasting is kind of off-topic for this vanue. However, you couldn't have an AI poseiq for the same reasons we've been debating about women as posqos -- there is more to something qualifying as hora'ah than the quality of the sevara. As a tool for suggesting sevaros for a rav to consider? Could they? Should they? Depends how good they end up being. I don't see this as a Torah question as much as a pragmatic one. Should a poseiq utilize YU's or JTS's library? A search engine? Same thing, no? Forecast for the next Sanhedrin: They will allow use of AI on dinei nefashos only if the AI includes a filter such that only sevaros lehaqeil are let through. Much the way a dayan can only change their mind and deliberate to convincing others of a new position (they can change their mind for the vote) when going from chatav to patur. Malkos too, they seem to be subsumed under DN in this context. For example the AhS that this rule would not apply to dinei mamunus because what is lehaqeil for one party is lehachmir for another. Never mentions malkos, but that sevara would place malkos with DN. (Can you guess where I'm up to in AhS yomi?) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 09:06:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 12:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180104170609.GE4924@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 06:26:41PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : A "doubt" is what happens when you've done your best to figure out the : situation, and you can't decide which way to go. So, for example, a : person who came across several authoritative texts, some of which : spelled "merchavyah" as one word and some spelled it as two, IF he was : unaware of this Gemara, then he would count up his texts and follow : the rov. If the gemara is no good to resolve a safeiq, it's no good to avoid it to begin with. I was suggesting that a kosher seifer Torah is defined by rov girsa'os, regardless of other sources and testimonies. This is in parallel to my belief that knowing what Chazal's zeisim were like through evidence found by archeologists in places like Masada doesn't eliminate needing to deal with pesaqim that were nispashtos based on much larger shiurim. Halakhah can and does drift, and is supposed to. Like my overused example of the differences in the mizbeiach between bayis rishon and bayis sheini. Anshei Keneses haGedolah knew that what they were requiring for nisuch was impossible in bayis rishon, and by their pesaq no one from Shelomo to the first churban -- and possibly even the Mishkan! -- was yotzei nisuch. Meanwhile (I argued, but others disagreed), by the pesaqim of bayis rishon, bayis sheini's mizbeiach with holes in it was the problematic one, and nisuch down that hole was not necessarily kosher. "Problematic" and "not necessarily" because I have no reason to believe it was outright discussed. But still, AKhG presumed kulos no one relied on until them as well. So, knowing what a kosher Tehillim was in Chazal's day may not mean that's what is kosher today. But... How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually says, but is it a halachic question at all? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 4 11:40:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180104194049.GA15876@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote: : >On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : >>... The story of the Chanukah oil : >>might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible : >>without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the : >>story in the Yad, no? : If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events : they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the : pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, : celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that : brought about "the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... : now brought to light" (Josephus)... Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah. But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it as so. ... : Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express : such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim : as historic fact. Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue. But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical, why wouldn't he use it that way? : And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that "all the : words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim") that the : Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you : conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's point.) : "Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi : she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam..." : "All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one : who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is : unfathomable." : Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's : only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not : concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of : Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor, but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you can. : I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and : how correctly translated it does not indicate that, You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach) . I dragged RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated "kulam" belongs. But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew version you were using leading to error. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zvilampel at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 10:56:51 2018 From: zvilampel at gmail.com (H Lampel) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta In-Reply-To: References: <20171225203401.GB9557@aishdas.org> <20171226012119.GH24733@aishdas.org> <057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com> <20171226160650.GC15636@aishdas.org> <3be0e149-3bef-27d4-6d43-814bfeafbb95@gmail.com> <20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <15fe4e61-353b-ccfb-8933-042a763961d1@gmail.com> > On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> ... The story of the Chanukah oil >> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible >> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the >> story in the Yad, no? If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good triumphs over evil.) >> ... You >> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic >> story ahistorical. >> >> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for >> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open >> to personal opinion. I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, sans a lesson from it. That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the lesson to. But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were definitely unconcerned about it. Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as historic fact. And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas? ''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...'' ''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one who? understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.'' Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah? >> ... >> : And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) >> : about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were >> : really reports of dreams and which were not... >> >> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching >> things that were disproven philosophically. I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant. But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as reports of dreams. I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how correctly translated it does not indicate that, >> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's >> ALL deep stuff. >> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph beginning, ''--Two types of statements'') Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 03:03:22 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] neural networks and halacha In-Reply-To: <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> References: <119e363bd6a24433af7d25b1ba691f01@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20180104163120.GB4924@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180105110322.GA29396@aishdas.org> Another thought: I didn't think AI could do the job at all. But say I'm wrong, and (like reading images in radiology and some other tasks) AIs can pick up things better than a poseiq: Many (most?) rishonim and acharonim have taken eilu va'eilu literally, that both answers are right, and that (unlike the Maharal) this is a rule, and not something specific to Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. A poseiq of this inclination would believe that there are multiple right answers. An AI finding one sevara wouldn't mean to him that the sevara he came up with was wrong. He would weigh each sevara on their own merits, and any trust in the AI's ability to find a good sevara shouldn't translate into a fear of concluding otherwise. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 5 06:24:09 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:24:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180105142409.GA9454@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 12:31:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : I have yet to find anyone asking this Q - : the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing : it is a Neneilah : yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur? Is it because BbCh is a issur kolel, since it includes not only issur akhilah, but also a general issur hana'ah? :-)BBii! -Micha From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 07:29:00 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Personally, I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this, because I did drive home from work last night and again at to work this morning. If anyone would like to write about the relative values of missing work and missing minyan, I would be interested. On the issue of going to shul in dangerous weather, I am very proud to relate the following story, which happened in my town a few years ago. A major storm was approaching, and expected to arrive on Shabbos day. (Sorry, I've forgotten which year, or which storm. I think it was either a year or a month before Superstorm Sandy.) Friday afternoon the mayor called our rav, to inform him that he was planning to close the roads at 4:00 Shabbos afternoon. The roads would be closed, he said, not only for cars, but pedestrians would be asked to stay inside. And so, he asked the rav to do what he could to insure the safety of the Jewish community. (I don't recall many other times when the government asked even pedestrians to stay off the streets.) Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that's the way I remember the announcement that was made in shul both on Friday night and again on Shabbos morning, that therefore, the regular Shabbos mincha-maariv was canceled, and replaced with a 2 PM mincha-only. Shul would be closed for maariv; we were all on our own. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 6 11:32:51 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:32:51 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs Message-ID: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. Alternatively, sources that say that if a custom's origin is problematic, you should drop the custom. (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). Ben From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 15:38:58 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Merchavyah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > How is this a halachic question again? How is a copy of > Tehillim kosher or pasul? The kavanah and pronunciation are > unchanged, no? It's important to know what the pasuq actually > says, but is it a halachic question at all? One can say whether a written Navi is kosher or pasul, and one can say whether a written Megilla is kosher or pasul. But I do concede that I don't know whether this is relevant to a written Tehillim. On the other hand, this question of one/two words does affect both the meaning and the pronunciation. Meaning: Ibn Ezra takes it as two separate words, the second of which is a Shem. In the Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, the "Iyun Tefila" at the very bottom of the page spells it as a single word, with nekudos, and explains that "merchavyah" simply means "very very wide"; he also gives three other examples where a word is given a yud-heh suffix merely for emphasis. Pronunciation: I can see how one might argue that if the vowels are unchanged, then the pronunciation is also unchanged. But I cannot agree with that. Surely, if they are two words, then there must be a gap between them, and that gap must be longer than what normally happens at a shva nach, no? But actually, the difference is bigger than that: When merchavyah is printed as two words, the final letter is a mapik heh. But when it is a single word (as in the Hirsch Tehillim, the Hirsch Siddur, and the Hertz siddur,) the mapik is missing. This is explicit in the Minchas Shai on our pasuk (Tehillim 118:5) and it is definitely going to affect the pronunciation (or at least, it *ought* to affect the pronunciation. :-) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:29:37 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:29:37 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? Message-ID: unfortunately it is not possible to understand that eating Shellil cooked with milk is BBCh because it is a tag-along to the Issur HanaAh of BBCh and is active bcs it is is an Issur Kollel. The RaMBaM MAssuros 9:6 that clearly states there is no Issur BBCh for EATING Neveilah or Cheilev cooked with milk [just the Issur to cook] bcs EIChAIssur - and he explains this in Kerisus as a Davar Nifla {I believe R Micha alerted us about this some weeks ago} - that the Issur HanaAh is really just an extended Issur Achilah here are a few other observations = is Shellil the same as Nefel, - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, RaMBaM uses the word Nefel - in BBCh 9:7 following the Gemara uses the word Shellil = Shellil in Perek 7:3 re Cheilev, uses the word Shellil to describe a live or dead non-fully-gestated foetus - in MAssuros 4:4 re Issur of eating Neveilah, he suggests that one who eats Nefel, dead or alive, transgresses the Issur of eating Neveilah, as he omits the word "dead" which he uses with precision in Halacha 1 i.e. eating flesh taken from a living beast is not a transgression of Achilas Neveilah, it must be from a dead beast. - according to 4:2 there should be no Issur Achilas Neveilah when eating a Nefel/Shellil since it cannot be Shechted to be made Kosher to eat and is in the words of the Mishnah Chullin 72b a species of beast that cannot be SHechted Ein BeMino Shechitah [Paskened by RaMBaM ShAvos HaTumos 2:6] - why is a special amplification required to include Shellil in the prohibition of BBCh, why might Shellil be different to the lungs kidneys ears or tail of a Beheimah? This is addrfessed by the Tiferes YaAkov - the foetus has no Issur Cheilev if it is dead or not fully gestated. Even the Llve fully gestated does not have Issur Cheilev until those kidney fats are exposed to the elements. Clearly, the foetus is not a regular Beheimah and indeed without the Derasha to include Shellil in the Issur BBCh we would correctly argue that it may be cooked with milk and eaten. Indeed, you may recall we discussed the Meshech Chochma who holds there is no BBCh with a Ben PeKUAh. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sat Jan 6 22:31:47 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 06:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes kosher. -/-//---- I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz laaretz. Source available on request Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 10:02:48 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 13:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim Message-ID: . It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic". They sure don't look like the ceramic coffee mugs we made in fourth grade. Obviously some sort of new-fangled material. Today I saw one that didn't really make any claim about its material, but it did have a QR code marked "scan here to learn more about our resin cutlery." (The code tried to bring me to a non-existent web page.) Resin? Isn't that the plastic that they make cheap lawn chairs from? Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus exempt from Tevilas Keilim. But I'd love to hear more information if we have a Materials Chemist in the chevreh. (Is that even a real job title?) To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect that this point is irrelevant to these new knives, for two reasons. These knives *are* coated, but it seems to be some kind of paint, not a glassy glaze. Perhaps more important, although most of the knife is coated, the very sharp edge of the blade is left uncoated. I would think that our main - and perhaps only - concern is for the cuttting edge itelf. Just like the handle is tafel to the knife, I would expect the body of the knife to be tafel to the edge of the blade. PS: I toveled our new knife without a bracha, just to be sure. Akiva Miller From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Jan 7 06:15:01 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:15:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBWQeKAmUVJUkEgICDigJxUb28gTXVjaCBEdXN0?= =?utf-8?q?_Clouds_the_Mind_with_Lust=E2=80=9D?= References: Message-ID: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh.? > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained in the name "Pharaoh.? > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. > Pharaoh believed that the magicians in his court were able to perform wonders only by manipulating physicality within the context of nature. > The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way. > > Par'o is described as a great crocodile, which fits with what the Staff turned into when cast before Par'o by Aharon, at Moshe's instruction (from God). > > (Adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:17:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:15:01AM -0500, Richard Wolberg forwarded an adaptation adapted from Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah Tidbits that assumes: > Rabbenu Bachya explains why the monarch of Egypt was called "Pharaoh." > He says that the letters spelling "afar" (dust/earth) are contained > in the name "Pharaoh." > Meaning that the Egyptians only believed in the earthiness of > existence. For the Egyptians, spirituality did not exist. The question is how Rabbeinu Bachya would understand the Book of the Dead and the whole business of embalming Pharoahs, buring them with their valuables (including slaves) to prepare them for the afterlife. Maybe that's just it... Because everything has to be gashmi, even their notion of afterlife is physical. I don't know. My initial reaction was to question Rabbeinu Bachya's history because they had a concept of reincarnation altogether. And what's with all those gods? Everything in earshy existence called back to some spiritual force. I am guessing his statement was something more nuanced than what made it through to the Torah Tidbit. Anyone know the maqor? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 7 13:32:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:31:47AM +0000, RJR replied to RBW: :> Sources that say that even if a certain custom's origin is problematic :> or even treif, if enough Jews accept the custom, the custom becomes :> kosher. : I think it's more that ancient cUstoms are given the benefit of : the doubt because if they were inappropriate customs older and greater : Rabbis would not have allowed it. See for example not duchening in chutz : laaretz. Source available on request Well, not duchening in chu"l isn't about the source being treif; it's wondering about the soundness of the rationale. No one is claiming the source is Sabbatean, which *is* thought to be true of the Tu biShvat seder. Which is what I thought RBW was talking about when he wrote: > (Thought of this withTu B'shvat coming up). One could ask also of Purim costumes, which just happen to arise first in a country that celebrates Carnivale around the same time of year, or eating milchig on Shavuos and Wittesmontag. However, I agree with you point... If a minhag or a pesaq is nispasheit, and then makes it through generations of observant Jews and the scrutiny of their rabbis, we work with the assumption that the minhag is more sound -- either in source or in motive -- than it seems. The textualist's defense of mimeticism. A stong motivator in the AhS -- he gets quite creative sometimes figuring out that the sevara for some accepted practice must be. (The Torah Temimah's creativity had to come from somewhere. The diffrence is, the father is working toward a known conclusion. The son could end up anywhere.) OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 7 19:36:16 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:36:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. Ben On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 8 02:02:14 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh Message-ID: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. Why did Balaam and the builders at Babel speak Lashon HaKodesh? The Zahar (Noach 75b), the principal textbook of Kabbalah, also adopts the approach favored by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma that the builders of the Tower of Babel spoke Lashon HaKodesh. The Zahar writes that because the builders of the Tower of Babel had arranged their sin by using Lashon HaKodesh for communication, they were granted supernatural powers to complete their ambitious project. Lashon HaKodesh is an especially holy language and when used for good, it can help significantly raise one's spiritual potential. However, the converse is also true: When Lashon HaKodesh is used to sin, it enables the sinner to sink deeper into the depths of evil. Thus, explains the Zahar, God stopped the builders from finishing their project of rebellion against Him by causing them to forget Lashon HaKodesh, thereby cutting off their supernatural support. Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than such a sin committed in any another language. Source: Rabbi Roth's Ma'arnar Tzahali V'Rini (chps. 2-4, printed at the end of Shornrei Ernunirn, Jerusalem, 2002), and Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe (Ma'arnar Lashon HaKodesh ?18-19). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:49:48 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:49:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I found the makor on Sefaria, it's RB on Genesis 41:16. As I read it, RB isn't contrasting physicality and spirituality, but rather opposing belief in the eternity of matter to belief in "yedia, hashgaha and hidush", as the original post said, "The natural order could not be overcome, overridden, or transcended in any way." Also that the Egyptians believed in a hierarchy of divine beings, with Pharaoh himself way up in the hierarchy, rather than One Creator and Master. Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:36 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> RAM wrote ..I did not go to shul for maariv last night, precisely because of the weather and safety issues. However, I was very conflicted about this.. I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. Shacharis, musaf, mincha Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From driceman at optimum.net Mon Jan 8 07:29:01 2018 From: driceman at optimum.net (David Riceman) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon Message-ID: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Some friends and I are (very slowly) studying some classics of mahshavah. We?ve recently moved boldly into the Napoleonic era by studying Tanya, with Nefesh HaHayyim to follow (DV). Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. Here are two claims I think he made: 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do anything wrong. 2: One transitions into these groups, not via Torah uMitzvos, but via enthusiasm ("rishpei shalheves mislaheves? in chapter 9). The problems are: (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, Mishlei 24:16) (b) While I?m woefully ignorant of Hassidic literature, I also know of no one who accepts this opinion. Can someone cite precedents and influences? Thanks, David Riceman From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 8 14:02:47 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak vs Eitzah Message-ID: <20180108220247.GA17089@aishdas.org> One of the issues that come up in the discussions about women as rabbis is the formal definition of hora'ah. If someone (like myself) wishes to claim that there is a qualitative difference between hora'ah given by a rav and advice given by someone else, it's kind of important to pin down the nafqa mina lemaaseh. Well, AhS Yomi seems to have touched on one such difference -- CM 25:5. CM 25 discusses when a BD can reverse its decision. If the error is in established halakhah, yes. But if it's in a subject that required shiqul hadaas... it depends on whether the dayanim are stam Jews, mumchim, or the gadol sheba'ir. But in se'if 5 he writes about mistakes in issur veheter, and how hora'ah differs from din. If a mumcheh gives hora'ah that follows a valid shitah that happens not to be the shitah that was nispasheit, it's hora'ah and he cannot normally back out. (Without the backing of a gadol dechakham yafeh, as he has more authority to define the town's pesaqim). Hora'ah isn't just informing someone of the din. It *creates* a din. His words are what defines which valid answer is the correct one. In contrast, your learned friend giving advice can err. Even if every other chicken in your town in this condition would be kosher, this chicken is treif. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com Mon Jan 8 14:28:09 2018 From: zalmanalpert770 at mail.gmail.com (Zalman Alpert) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be Careful With What You Say in Lashon HaKodesh In-Reply-To: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> References: <1515405732292.78615@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2018 5:02 AM, "Professor L. Levine" wrote: > The following is from page 45 of Lashon HaKodesh, History, Holiness, & > Hebrew by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein. ... > *Based on this concept, Rabbi Aharon Roth (1893-1946) and Rabbi Yoel* > *Teitelbaum note that a verbal sin (e.g., immoral speech, slander, > blasphemy) committed in Lashon HaKodesh is a much more serious offense than > such a sin committed in any another language.* Strange because the Satmarer rebbe notes in all his seforim that the languagr of the Zionists and Israel is not loshon kodesh but Ivrit and thus it hasno kefusha see his maamar ladhon kodesh for an in depth treatment From JRich at sibson.com Mon Jan 8 22:14:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 06:14:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> References: , <090d01d38895$5a046b20$0e0d4160$@com> Message-ID: <38ECA05B-E6F3-4270-BA41-0C551D9DCF13@sibson.com> I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. ---------- I think it's a bit more complex than that, see the following link for more detail: Kt Joel rich https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_davening_with_a_minyan/ THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 9 14:41:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 22:41:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Dina D'Malchusa Dina Message-ID: <1515537683270.68622@stevens.edu> There are some within the Orthodox community who claim that Dina D'Malchusa Dina does not apply in a democracy. They are wrong. For a detailed discussion of this topic with examples of how it applies to our lives, see https://www.google.com/url?... or https://goo.gl/dLGcRi Prof. Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:27:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:27:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah Message-ID: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, or even likely. As the Chaver says in Kuzari 1:13: That which you talk about is religion based on speculation and methodolgy, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on any 1 action or 1 principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. So how do people believe? Because what is proven, or at least the givens on which the argument is based fits the world as the person experiences it. And so, we never really know for certain if our proofs are solid. If they read conclusions we already expect, we can miss errors. And if they reach conclusions that don't fit our experience, we find errors that may or may not be real. This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of the proof follows. More recently R/Dr Moshe Koppel started a blog, "Judaism without Apologies". His discussion is in terms of archetypes. The three central ones are: Shimen: raised a Gerer chassid, his life still revolves around the shteibl and its gang of regulars. Heidi: typical "Tikkun Olam" liberal Jew Amber: the Post-Modern child of a Heidi And he uses them to contrast where each obtains their ethics, who they think should be charged with responsitibility, and to explain why Shimen's system is the more effective. (Hopefully, that will convince you to spend the time to read the blog.) R/D MK just started a new section of posts on faith. Of course you know by this point I'm going to point out how eloquaently he posts a position much like my own. See or It begins: Jewish Belief: Round 1 For the past 25 posts, I have been harping on the differences between Shimen's and Heidi's respective values and traditions. One frequent objection I've gotten is that I should be talking about their beliefs, not their lifestyles. After all, aren't the disagreements between Shimen and Heidi about how to live merely second-order differences that follow inevitably from their irreconcilable beliefs about nature, history and theology? Well, if you insist, we can talk about these irreconcilable differences of belief. But, I've got to tell you right up front that the answer to your semi-rhetorical question is (spoiler alert!) no. Young Shimen didn't contemplate nature and history and conclude, like our forefather Abraham, that there must be a "ruler of the castle". He was raised to honor particular values and traditions long before he had the most rudimentary ability to contemplate the stuff of belief. And among the traditions that he honors is the affirmation of certain claims about the world. Simply put, the direction of the causality implicit in the question above is exactly backwards: in fact, values and traditions are primary and beliefs are derivative. This raises lots of obvious questions (how can we choose to believe something?) all of which we'll get to soon enough. For now, I want to briefly outline, in a perfectly naive way, traditional Jewish beliefs about the world. In subsequent posts, we'll take a deeper dive and reconsider both the content and nature of traditional Jewish belief... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 10 14:47:27 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Pets on Shabbos, according to R' Asher Weiss Message-ID: <20180110224727.GA24477@aishdas.org> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat Interestingly, before even getting to heterim based on tza'ar ba'alei chaim, R Asher Weiss discusses whether the concept of animals being muqatzah even applies to pets. Tosafos (Shabbos 45b "hakhah") quotes R"R Yoseif that a live chick, since it is used to entertain a crying baby, may be carried on Shabbos. However, they end up rejecting that shitah, and in Mes' Beitzah (2a "dilma") they say it's a muqtza gamor. Shu"t Halakhos Qetanos (1:45) raises the question of carying a bird to chear up a baby and doesn't quote the Tosafos in Shabbos. (RAW is surprised.) Instead he brings Tos BM (36b "peirei") about shor and chamor being keilim -- the focus being about qinyan chalifin, but he concludes this would also be true to exclude them from muqatza. And Chiqrei Leiv (OC 1:59) limits this to a shor ha'omeid lacharishah. Unlike the bird, which isn't omeid for chearing up babies. RAW questions the extrapolation from qinyan chalipin to muqtza. The Or Zarua #81 permits tiltul of songbirds that are kept for singing. But in the next siman (#82) quotes Teshuvas haRash who was unhappy to be meiqil for baalei chai, like pebbles (even those in your own yard) -- they aren't really keilim. So, machloqes rishonim. R"R Yoseif and Halakhos Qetanos say usable animals are not muqtza. The Rosh says they are plausibly not muqtza, but it's a qula he's unhappy relying on. The Chiqrei Leiv and Or Zarua permit animals like pets, if they are designated for use like a keli. RAW then explores the concept of lo pelug, and whether one can be meiqil on pets, or whether we should (like the Rosh) assume lo peluq. First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From lisa at starways.net Wed Jan 10 23:57:20 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the case for everyone. Lisa On 1/11/2018 12:27 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I have long argued that emunah doesn't come from philosophical proofs or > other intellectual arguments. All such proofs are build upon a set of > givens. Therefore no matter how stong a proof may seem to one person, > there will be another person who doesn't find its givens compelling, > or even likely. > > ... > > This is where cynical remarks about kiruv and a good chulent come from. > Because it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, the acceptance of > the proof follows. > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:16:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:16:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology Message-ID: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much more difficult to prove). KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 02:21:09 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Psak recognizing human nature? Message-ID: <1e68ba9802e7486a867354c51e225f55@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Interesting example of psak reflecting human nature- Kohanim don't leave the duchen before kaddish because of the minhag of saying Yasher Koach (and thus people won't answer the required kaddish responses) So how is it decided when to educate and when to have workarounds? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 02:45:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : Aside from the fact that I disagree with your equating emunah and : belief, you're overgeneralizing.? It might be correct to say that : *for some people*, it's the experience of Shabbos that convinces, : and the acceptance of the proof follows, but it's certainly not the : case for everyone. Well, even if you follow the Rambam that emunah is knowledge, "knowledge" in the Rambam's universe is "justified and true belief". So you need belief in there either way. The Rambam insists that the justification must be philosophical proof. He rules out trusting mesorah (which I would wall a kind of reliabilism), believing because one trusts ones teachers explicitly. (And if you side with the Rambam about knowledge, do you agree with him [last ch. of the Moreh], that perfection of knowldge is a higher ideal than perfection of character? That it is knowledge that causes one to have a place in the World to come [Hil' Teshuvah 8:2-3], that earns on hashgachah peratis [Moreh 3:18], and knowledge that makes one capable of prophecy [1:2, see the opening 2 chapters also about Adam haRishon and knowledge as human perfection]? The Rambam's attitude toward knowledge is so distinctly Aristotilian. ) My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible. The field that studies this thing ended up (so far) siding with R' Yehudah haLevi over the Rambam about the nature of their own field. And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. Just as people need a motivation whether to choose whether an unanswered question is a disproof, or to decide it's merely something interesting to shelve for later because some answer must exist. We need motivation to even look for that question. We need motivation to find a first principle compelling. Yes, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing the something that is true is that it accords with experience. So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of the proof because they already believed in the conclusion. The proof serves as chizuq emunah. But people are incapable of initiating belief because of proof. Not some people; there are independent reasons bullt into the limitations of philosophy, and into the human condition. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From lisa at starways.net Thu Jan 11 03:30:29 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:30:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> On 1/11/2018 12:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > My problem is that few philosophers since Kant believe that solid proofs > of the sort the Rambam is talking about are even possible... > And few psychologists would agree with your assertion that we could > retain enough objectivity to identify a solid proof if we bumped into one. ... > Yet, the result is still knowledge according to the classical definition > -- justified, true, belief. Just that the justification for believing > the something that is true is that it accords with experience. > > So yes, I feel comfortable saying that even people who think they are > believing because of proof are really believing in the authenticity of > the proof because they already believed in the conclusion... I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong. Even a broken Greek can be right twice a day. As far as knowledge vs character, I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. Neither one is enough by itself. Whistling in shul instead of davening may indicate belief, but I don't think it actually indicates emunah. You might guess that Hassidut isn't exactly my cup of tea. However, I recognize that there are those for whom Hassidut is precisely their cup of tea. The fact that I feel otherwise doesn't mean I dismiss them as not existing. You seem to be doing just that when you say that kishkes are the real source of Judaism for everyone, and that everything else comes later. I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very 20th/21st century in their solipsism. Just because many psychologists think that doesn't make it so. Rather than call psychology a "social science" (implying that it's fundamentally a science, but of the social sort), I'd call it a field of applied philosophy (implying that it is fundamentally not a science, but only a kind of mental game). To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life. If anything, the opposite is true. And yes, most people I know in similar situations do come up with reasons for disbelieving in the Torah b'dieved, after they're already OTD. Which is a data point in favor of your theory. But as I said, it's not universal. If it was, I would have no emunah, and that's clearly not the case. Lisa From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 09:29:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Source of Emunah In-Reply-To: <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> References: <20180110222750.GA24660@aishdas.org> <72ec9ce7-5c33-6a1e-0972-1b7633fd2989@starways.net> <20180111104501.GA11009@aishdas.org> <6873ee6d-5479-f38f-0415-ad88474b35c5@starways.net> Message-ID: <20180111172950.GB12940@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:30:29PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote: : I have to disagree again. Belief is emotional. Conviction is, at least : ideally, rational/intellectual. I would maintain that the latter is a much : better fit for the Hebrew emunah, derived as it is from emet, or truth. It was Plato who first defined knowledge as "justified true belief". Aristo agreed, and so I assumed the Rambam did as well. Until the Gettier Problem, this was the standard definition of knowledge. And Edmund Gettier is still alive. You might think of emotionally founded belief when you use the word. But I told you I am talking about "belief" in the sense of "justified true belief". My point of contention is that philosophical proof, or any argument from first principles, doesn't work as justification. People end up choosing which proofs they find compelling. What I am saying is that deeply held beliefs, like religion (or the superiority of vi over Emacs ) are generally justified by first-hand experience. And so it's experience that make those beliefs instances of knowledge. That's not about emotion. After all, it's experience, not emotion, that justify my belief that my tefillin batim are black. It's not philosophically proven knowledge, but it's knowledge. Similarly, it's the redemptive experience of a well-done Shabbos, or the aesthetic beauty of a good piece of lomdus or the like that justify my belief in the revalatory nature of halakhah and of Torah in general. Those experiences turn the belief into knowledge. They are also what make me willing to accept the proofs that further buttress and provide more confidence in my knowledge. To accept the givens those proofs are based upon. And to shelve attempted arguments against as interesting open questions, rather than thinking they could realistically be disproofs. And I don't think there is a single school, orientation or modality of psychology that would question this. : Labeling something as Aristotelian doesn't mean it's wrong... No, but pointing out that the idea was dismissed by people who study and critique Aristo for a living does mean you shouldn't be so quick to accept it. Even if the Rambam did. One school of thought about Aristotle's position on akrasia (why people make decisions they know are bad) is that he believes that bad choices came from bad opinions. Rather than mussar's discussion of hergel, taavah, and nequdas habechirah (that there are decisions made preconsciously, without fee will). Or the typical psychological approach seeing reasn and emotion in a two-way feedback loop. I argue in that this belief that proper opions is what leads to good behavior and proper dei'os is what underlies the Rambam's focus on knowledge as the key to personal redemption. : As far as knowledge vs character, : I think it's a false dichotomy. Both are vital. I believe Chazal are clear that we are judged by our character. Knowledge is vital -- as a handmaiden for character. You won't emulate G-d without knowing something about Him. And even in a two-directional feedback loop, there is still knowledge's role as cause of emotion (c.f. CBT). ... : I also have a problem with most philosophers, so saying that they believe : (there's that word again) that solid proofs may not even be possible : is like saying that they question objective reality. Sure they do. Or : at least they claim to. I think that when push comes to shove, none of : them would step off the top of the Empire State Building because the : reality of what that would result in isn't objective enough for them. You are equating knowing a reality with philosophically proving it from first principles. I am "only" dismissing the latter. Which is not only the commonly accepted position among people who do epistomology, it's R' Yehudah haLevi as well. : And lest the social "sciences" get neglected, I find the idea that our : perceptions of reality are "our reality" to be laughable, and very, very : 20th/21st century in their solipsism... All this is non-sequitur. : To get more concrete and less theoretical, you know me. You must : know that I have no emotional draw to a Torah life.... And, as I said about your detour into Chassidus, we aren't talking about knowledge "justified" on emotion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 08:57:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? Message-ID: . R' Mordechai Cohen wrote: > I don't know of any obligation to doven maariv b'tzibur. > The obligation of b'tzibur only applies to tefilot that were > 'obligatory' ie incl chazaras hashas. > Shacharis, musaf, mincha This was news to me. I was not able to find this elsewhere. If anyone knows of any sources for this, please share. But I did find something relevant: Mechaber 90:16 says that in order to daven with a minyan, a traveler must go 4 mil farther than his planned stopover, or even backwards, but need not go more than 1 mil backwards. Mishne Brura 90:50 explains that the "4 mil forwards" rule applies only if he was planning to go in that direction anyway, and that a diversion off to the side need not be more than 1 mil. In my opinion, this teaches that in these halachos, the word "l'acharav" (which is often translated as "backwards" or "in reverse") might be best translated as "out of his way". Mishna Brura 90:52 says: "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"? It seems clear to me (especially in light of the proximity of this halacha to Mechaber 90:15) that this is simply because of the dangers of going outside at night. Hence it has nothing at all to do with "tefilot that were 'obligatory'", and the word "erev/evening" was well chosen, because the exemption is not only for maariv: it is also for mincha, if it would force one to be outside in the dark. The first few times that I read this MB, I saw a contradiction: If there's no obligation to go out in the dark, even when shul is closer than a mil, then who is he complaining about at the end? I can think of two answers to that question: (1) It is dangerous to go out at night in a "yishuv/settlement", but it is safe in a "eer/city". (2) If you are genuinely afraid then you have a heter, but not if you're just lazy. I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways: (1) I didn't notice any blanket exemptions for nighttime dangers. (2) Where the MB says "tzarich/has to", the AhS uses the stronger "chayav/obligated". Akiva Miller From simon.montagu at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:28:25 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > I?d welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker > dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in > nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it?s 100% one or the > other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more > quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much > more difficult to prove). > I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828 . Unfortunately there is no preview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Jan 11 14:22:18 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:22:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies Message-ID: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. It is certainly true that Limudei Kodesh is more important than Limudei Chol. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the denigration of the need for secular studies in some parts of the Orthodox community. However, this attitude is not in consonance with a Torah perspective, because it ignores the following: First of all, we have the GRA's sefer Ayel Meshulash which deals with geometry and solid geometry that should be studied. Also, there is the following opinion of the GRA that is given by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov in the introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid's book ongeometry, Sefer Uklidos (The Hague, 1780). There he writes When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of the eyes of the exile, therenowned pious one [may HaShem protect and save him] Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking in knowledge of the "other wisdoms", correspondingly he will be lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the Torah and the "other wisdoms" are inextricably linked together ... In addition, we have that R. Yhonason Eybeschutz wrote in Yaaros Devash 2:7 (as translated by L. Levi in Torah and Science pages 24-25): For all the sciences are "condiments" and are necessary for our Torah, such as the science of mathematics, which is the science of measurements and includes the science of numbers, geometry, and algebra and is very essential for the measurements required in connection with the Eglah Arufah and the cities of the Levites and the cities of refugeas well as the Sabbath boundaries of our cities. The science of weights [i.e., mechanics] is necessary for the judiciary, to scrutinize in detail whether scales are used honestly or fraudulently. The science of vision [optics] is necessary for the Sanhedrin to clarify the deceits perpetrated by idolatrous priests; furthermore, the need for this science is great in connection with examining witnesses, who claim they stood at a distance and saw the scene, to determine whether the arc of vision extends so far straight or bent. The science of astronomy is a science of the Jews, the secret of leap years to know the paths of the constellations and to sanctify the new moon. The science of nature which includes the science o fmedicine in general is very important for distinguishing the blood of the Niddah whether it is pure or impure ... and how much more is it necessary when one strikes his fellow man in order to ascertain whether the blow was mortal, and if he died whether he died because of it, and for what disease one may desecrate the Sabbath. Regarding botany, how great is the power of the Sages in connection with kilayim [mixed crops]! Here too we may mention zoology, to know which animals may be hybridized; and chemistry, which is important in connection with the metals used in the tabernacle, etc. Professor Yitzchok Levine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:21:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VA'EIRA "Too Much Dust Clouds the Mind with Lust" In-Reply-To: References: <562A716C-1CCE-426C-9F09-50E6022751D4@cox.net> <20180107211718.GA24854@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180111232157.GA12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : Either way, I don't think it's all that critical whether any of this was : historically true of the Egyptians in either Joseph or Moses' time. Derash : routinely merges the attributes of historical resha`im and contemporaries, : either lesaber et ha'ozen when describing the ancient ones, or in order to : use them as stand-ins when criticizing the modern world (e.g. Bereishit : Rabba mentioning the circuses and theatres in Sodom). However, if it's not how people closer to the Misr Empire in time actually understood the Mitzri worldview, it means there is an intended lesson we still didn't mine from the story. Regardless of whether HQBH wants us to project the matrialist / anti-spiritual worldview on the Mitzriim of His "canvas" to emphasize the lesson given in the original devar Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:40:58 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Napoleon In-Reply-To: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> References: <86F77A5F-00C8-4752-BD2B-65FD050574AD@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20180111234058.GC12215@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:29:01AM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : Tanya... Last night we looked at chapters 10-12. : : Here are two claims I think he made: : : 1: There is a large group of people who never do anything wrong by : commission or omission, and a smaller group who never desire to do : anything wrong. ... : (a) I know of no precedents for these opinions (see Koheles 7:20, : Mishlei 24:16) A related problem: Does anyone else define the first group "beinonim" and the latter group "tzadiqim"? The terms seem redefined, so that the sources later quoted and interpreted according to these terms are transvalued into saying things the author didn't intend. (Don't shoot me, I said "seems" -- just how the text reads to this naive reader.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 11 15:37:06 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It seems that many of the kitchen knives that I see for sale these : days are labeled as being made of something called "ceramic"... Wiki says: A ceramic knife is a knife designed with a ceramic blade typically made from zirconium dioxide (ZrO2; also known as zirconia).[1] These knife blades are usually produced through the dry-pressing and firing of powdered zirconia using solid-state sintering. Zirconia is second to diamond in toughness. It is 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, compared to 4.5 for normal steel and 7.5 to 8 for hardened steel and 10 for diamond. The resultant blade has a tough edge that stays sharper for longer when compared to conventional steel knives. The ceramic blade is sharpened by grinding the edges with a diamond-dust-coated grinding wheel. : Anyway, I strongly suspect that these knives are non-metallic and thus : exempt from Tevilas Keilim. ... : To help insure that this thread stays on Avodah, I will add the : following: To my knowledge, plain unglazed earthenware is clearly : exempt from tevila, but many (most?) require tevila for *glazed* : earthenware, because the glaze is considered like glass. I suspect The question would be whether sintered zirconia is zekhukhis. So, I clicked the link on "sintering" at the above page to get to : Sintering is the process of compacting and forming a solid mass of material by heat[1] or pressure[2] without melting it to the point of liquefaction. Sintering happens naturally in mineral deposits or as a manufacturing process used with metals, ceramics, plastics, and other materials. The atoms in the materials diffuse across the boundaries of the particles, fusing the particles together and creating one solid piece. Because the sintering temperature does not have to reach the melting point of the material, sintering is often chosen as the shaping process for materials with extremely high melting points such as tungsten and molybdenum.... So, it's like making glass, but instead of heating to the melting point, it gets the particles to merge by other means. There is ceramic instering (see the appropriate subsection of the above wikipedia entry), except "[a]ll the characteristic temperatures associated with phase transformation, glass transitions, and melting points, occurring during a sinterisation cycle of a particular ceramics formulation". So, they arent' really ceramic, they are sintered into a single whole in a way cheres, which is poorous, isn't. It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:28:31 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:28:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush Jewish Journal. --------- Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious and secular studies in many ways is a false one. Hkb'h gave us a torah for this world that he created with all these "science "elements. One might say that just as one who studies Torah with out proper intention (i.e. for Pure academic enjoyment) has fallen short, one who studies secular studies with the intent of serving hkbh has elevated those studies. I'm not going to get into a discussion of the relative levels of reward Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 11 21:50:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:50:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com>, Message-ID: I was going to suggest that "fuzzy logic" might be a more fruitful direction to take this idea than "quantum mechanics". Then I tried googling and came up with this: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-States-Talmudic-Reasoning-Hebrew/dp/1848901828. Unfortunately there is no preview. ______________________________________________ Wow- Baruch shekivanti It's part of a series in Hebrew. Is anyone familiar with it? Kt joel rich Fuzzy Logic and Quantum States in Talmudic Reasoning (Hebrew Edition)(Hebrew) Hardcover - August 19, 2015 by Michael Abraham (Author),? Israel Belfer (Author),? & 1 more THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Jan 12 02:32:18 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> One might think that if a restaurant is vegan, then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it. However, as the article from the COR at https://goo.gl/GrbWpM points out, this is not the case. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Jan 12 06:14:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? Message-ID: <1515766437273.9900@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. At this time of year, I wake up before Alos Hashachar (dawn). May I eat before davening? A. Although we noted in the previous Halacha Yomis that it is forbidden to eat before davening Shacharis, this prohibition begins only at Alos Hashachar. Before Alos Hashachar, one may eat, since it is not yet the time to daven. However, within 30 minutes of Alos Hashachar, one may not begin a meal. A meal is defined as an egg-size volume of bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin (bread-like products such as cake or crackers). During this half hour, one may eat as much meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, or other non-bread or pas haba'ah b'kisnin as they want. Even if one began a meal more than half an hour before Alos Hashachar, once Alos Hashachar arrives all eating must stop. According to the Zohar, one who went to sleep and awoke after midnight may not eat until davening Shacharis, even though it is long before Alos Hashachar. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is not the halacha, but it is proper to follow the Zohar if one can. He also notes that some explain that the Zohar was only forbidding a large meal, but a light snack would be permitted. If one is feeling weak, they may certainly eat before Alos Hashachar. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 00:15:49 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Modern knives, and tevilas keilim In-Reply-To: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> References: <20180111233706.GB12215@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 11/01/18 18:37, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > It would seem that if you want to apply the rationale of zekhukhis, > these ceramic knives would qualify, but since many/most posqim seem > nervouse about even including pyrex, I think a typical pesaq would be > to treat it with the chumerous of both zekhukhis and cheres. I don't see how it fits the rationale of zechuchis. The reason the rabonon addedd glass to the kelim requiring tevilah is because, like metal, it can be melted and recast. That would not be true of these ceramics. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 12 10:47:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:47:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Brisker Methodology In-Reply-To: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1ad6e88336a74381a2db2128cd487f42@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180112184720.GC22303@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:16:09AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I'd welcome some feedback on some Brisker methodology thoughts. Brisker : dialectics sometimes seem like Newtonian physics(more Boolean in : nature-there are 2 dinim or two explanations and it's 100% one or the : other), which explains a lot, but not all, the data. I wonder if a more : quantum mechanics, less Boolean approach might explain more (but be much : more difficult to prove). There are other non-boolean logics to advocate. As I've said whenever this comes up in the realm of birur, I believe that halakhah's main focus is refining its adherents, and therefore it deals with unknowns not probabilistically or using fuzzy sets, but using the psychology of how people natively deal with unknowns. Which extends to explain chazaah and qavuah seamlessly. Something similar can be done here too. The famous line about the difference between Brisk and Telzh is that R' Chaim's derekh asks "Vos?" (What?) and R' Shimon asks "Fahr vos?" (Why?) But there is another difference. R' Chaim assumes that two causes have two effects, if there are two causes we will speak of tzvei dinim. In contrast, R Shimon often discusses how a single din may emerge from a hitztarfus of two causes. In the realm of metzi'us too, it is usual for something to only happen because two or more things caused it, neither of which could have caused it alone. (A car doesn't run over a ball unless the ball rolled into the street AND someone was driving down it.) People are often conflicted. Whether we mean something like a dialectic between conflicting values, common experiences of mixed emotions, or conflicting beliefs we draw in in different situations. (Such as the way Hashem is in heaven -- Avinu shebashamayim -- and also also Omnipresent. Halevai we were aware of such conflicts so that we can relate to them on a dialectic level.) So it would make sense for a discipline designed to refine such creatures would have laws based on combinations of causes EVEN IN CASES where those causes imply contradiction! A logic that defies both the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle would work better than anything boolean. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Fri Jan 12 13:33:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 12/01/18 05:32, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no > kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. There are additional problems that the article doesn't mention, for instance the fact that it's very common in restaurants for employees to bring in their own food and cook it on the restaurant's equipment. A kosher-certified restaurant must ban this, or at least provide separate equipment for employees to use for their own meals. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Jan 13 09:05:26 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 19:05:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce directly from the secular kibbutz. Ben On 1/12/2018 12:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > One might think that if a restaurant is vegan,? then there are no kashrus problems with eating at it.? However, as the article from the COR at > > https://goo.gl/GrbWpM > > points out,? this is not the case. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Jan 13 18:59:16 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:59:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] BO Ahavat Chinam should be the guiding LIGHT Message-ID: <9BF98116-2D1F-4CBE-9556-F17F81E3A3E3@cox.net> The Rabbis see the plague of darkness (which did not affect the Jews) in more spiritual terms, and connect the phrase "no man could see his brother" to the darkness. We assume that it was because it was dark, people could not see one another, but the Rabbis suggest that it is the other way around! It was because they could not see one another, it became dark. Because the Egyptians were not able to be concerned with others, they were in a psychological darkness (melancholy in Greek means 'dark mood'). And here is our spiritual lesson: people not prepared to be concerned for one another are at risk of being in a spiritual darkness. The Gemara defines 'dawn' (the earliest time for Shacharis) as the time "when one can recognize the face of a friend" (Berachot 9b). That is why we are also reminded of the mitzvah ?vahavta l?rayecha kamocha? right before we begin shacharit. Excerpted from Kolel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Sat Jan 13 20:16:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <06ac49a4-d83d-7c7a-40ab-7a2d5e080627@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <822cefdb-fad0-f771-fd8b-d5b7ab4974ed@sero.name> On 13/01/18 12:05, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we > demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the > owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". > The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french > fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce > directly from the secular kibbutz. There are people who will eat at any restaurant that says "kosher" in the window, trusting the owner both not to lie and to know what kosher is. Many of the same people will eat at vegan restaurants even if they *don't* claim to be kosher, thinking that if it's vegan it must automatically be kosher. The page is aimed at clearing up that misconception by showing how vegan places can still be treif. For instance, many people think bishul yisroel is a mere chumra, and don't understand that bishul akum is *lechol hadeos* just as treif as chicken parmesan. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 15 06:23:41 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Eating Before Davening, Women Message-ID: <1516026214092.91105@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Halacha Yomis Does the prohibition of not eating before davening also apply to women? I usually say Modeh Ani and Birchas Hashachar and then eat breakfast, and then daven Shmoneh Esrei later. Is this permitted? (Subscriber's Question) A. Shulchan Aruch (OC 106:2) writes that women are obligated in Tefillah (i.e. Shmoneh Esrei). However, the Magen Avrohom (106:2) points out that most women do not regularly daven Shmoneh Esrei, but instead fulfill their obligation with any prayer, such as a short prayer that they recite when they awake in the morning. The Mishnah Berurah writes that this is a minority opinion, and therefore women should make sure to daven Shacharis and Mincha daily. Igeros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that based on the Magen Avrohom, there is a basis for a woman to be lenient and eat before davening Shacharis, so long as she has already recited some prayer. Teshuvos V'Hanhagos (3:37) writes that women who are very busy in the mornings (e.g., taking care of children) are exempt from Tefillah at that time, and therefore may eat. However, he too writes that women should nevertheless recite Birchas Hashachar and the first pasuk of Shema before eating. He concludes that although it is proper for women to daven Shacharis (like the Mishnah Berurah), regarding eating before davening, they may rely on the Magen Avrohom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Jan 16 10:41:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Women eating Message-ID: <1516128054654.79270@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. I was not aware of the fact that a married woman can eat before Kiddush provided her husband has not yet davened Shachris. Q. After davening on Shabbos morning, one may not eat without hearing Kiddush. May women eat before hearing Kiddush, after reciting a short prayer? A. Mishnah Berurah (286:7) writes that once one davens Shacharis, one becomes obligated in Kiddush and may not even drink until hearing Kiddush. However, before davening one may drink water or coffee (as was discussed in a previous Halacha Yomis). Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasa (52:13) writes that women who do not daven Shacharis, but instead rely on the opinion that it is sufficient for them to say a short prayer in the morning become obligated to hear Kiddush after reciting that prayer. If a woman is feeling weak and does not have grape juice available, some poskim are lenient to allow them to eat and drink before hearing Kiddush, since there is an opinion that women are not obligated in Kiddush on Shabbos day [Teshuvas Minchas Yitzchok 4:28 (3)]. However, Igros Moshe (OC 4:101) writes that a married woman may eat before Kiddush provided that her husband has not yet davened Shacharis. According to Igros Moshe the obligation of a married woman to hear Kiddush only begins after her husband has davened Shacharis and he himself is obligated in Kiddush. For example, we can assume that if a man went to a 9:00 minyan, he will have finished davening Shacharis by about 9:45 AM. According to Igros Moshe provided that the wife said a short prayer in the morning, she may eat without hearing Kiddush until 9:45. If she wants to eat afterwards she must recite Kiddush. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 16 14:58:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu communities, Jains, etc... Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is served is also assur? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 17 05:04:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:04:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> References: <90.89.03203.8BE885A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180116225828.GG25217@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4c48609d-570f-b97f-110e-f2339a5cc8f6@sero.name> On 16/01/18 17:58, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let's say we are talking about people who are religiously vegan, who > would shun a dish ever used for meat -- regardless of temp, of sharpness, > and they have no concept of kashering. That includes numerous Hindu > communities, Jains, etc... *If* one could know that the owner really is that makpid on keilim, *and* that he personally eats from the restaurant and from its keilim, then one might be able to rely on it for those questions. But this itself requires investigation to see whether it's in fact the case. At the very least one would have to explicitly find out his policy on employees cooking their own food. And this would still leave the problem of bishul akum. This can only be solved if the restaurant serves exclusively things that are not subject to this prohibition. Some "health food" places may qualify. > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable as beer > indutry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in France)? (As a > she'eila, not a qushya.) In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe we can, but those cases don't prove it. > One might have a totally different problem in such places, taqroves AZ. > It's common to have house shrines. What if one part of the dish was > offered, does it only prohibit the the taqroves itself, or because it > is an anti-terumah that is intended to reflect on the whole, what is > served is also assur? I would think that even if they have this concept of what you call "anti-terumah", i.e. that they are "matir" a dish by giving part of it, we wouldn't be bothered by it unless they physically offered the whole dish to the idol and then removed a portion to "feed" it while taking the rest back to serve the customer. The world has enough religions that this is possible. All I can report from personal observation is that the statue in the front window of Madras Mahal, a former restaurant in NYC's "curry hill" under the hechsher of R Gulevsky, *was* worshipped by the staff and believed to be a god who cares how he is treated, and they may well have offered it food, though I never saw this, but I ate there often enough that I think I would have noticed if they ever brought a dish out to the window and then served it to a customer, let alone if they brought a whole pot of something out to the window and then back into the kitchen. I can't say whether they were "mafrish terumah" into a keli that could then be offered to the idol after closing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 09:53:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Location of Yeshivos of the Amoraim? Message-ID: <20180117175326.GD11917@aishdas.org> Doing a favor for a self-described "certified lurker", who asked me to forward this anonymously: : Someone who's learning Gittin asked me to find maps that would show : relationship of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. Acco aka Acre) to Sura, : Neharda'ah and Mechuzah. I can find Sura on Wikipedia etc but I : can't find a way to print a map with all of these cities. Maybe : someone knows their present day names, or knows how to find such a : map? I can get you started: Rav started Nehardaa, in what is now the governate of al-Anbar. He eventually leaves Nehardaa to Shemuel, whose father was the mora de'asra, and started a second yeshiva in Sura. They were intentionally at distant parts of Jewish Babylonian settlement, to make Torah available to as many towns as possible. Igeres R' Shrira Gaon says that Sura was identical to Masa-Machsia. R' Natronai Gaon says Sura was a few miles from al Hira in the direction of Mechoza (see below). Academics think Mata-Machsia was a suburb. Either way, there are records of shiurim of Sura sometimes being at MM. When the city of Nehardaa is destroyed (259ce), about a decade after Rav's petirah, many rebuld in nearby Pumbedisa. Pumbedisa is today's Falluja. (In honor of the costly US action in Falluja during the Iraq war, I blogged in 2010 something about R' Yehudah, Pumbedisa, and the birth of Babylonian amoraic "lomdus" . I make Rabbi Yehuda out to look like a precursor to R' Chaim Brisker -- thought it was wrong to make aliyah, invented a new way to learn halakhah, etc...) The original yeshiva in Nehardaa doesn't entirely close, and really regains its former glory under Rava (about a century later). So, Nehardaa was where the Euphrates and the King's Canal (Nahr Malka) meet. I think the city of Ramadi is there now, unless I got my canal's confused. Pumbedisa is in Falluja. Ramadi and Falluja are < 10 mi apart, so that fits the history. Abayei was Rosh Yeshiva in Pumbedisa. When he was niftar, his talmidim relocated the yeshiva to Mechoza (today's al-Mada'in), where Rav was teaching, and absorbed the school already there. So, Mechoza and Pumbedisa are two different locations, but the same yeshiva. Meanwhile Sura runs continually for the whole period. Perhaps with an occasional side trip to Masa-Machsia, depending on whether it's a town and a suburb, two names of the same place, and why we find amoraim of Sura often talking in MM. Both Sura and Pumbedisa end up in Baghdad and evaporate in the 11th cent CE. HOWEVER, R' Berel Wein says that a Baghdadi institution that had a continuous history from THE Academy of Sura and retained the name Sura was closed as late as the Baathist party (the people who put Saddam Hussein into power) in 1958. Making Sura the longest running institute of higher learning in human history. Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 17 12:32:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <15ad36f9b68e48ddb043bc586f9ec5d2@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <2F.F1.04056.2E2BF5A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:54 PM 1/17/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Frankly I don't understand the question. One of the main reasons we >demand hasgacha on a meat restaurant is because we don't believe the >owner's word when he says "Don't worry, all the ingredients are Badatz". >The same would apply with a vegan place. Maybe he fries up his french >fries in lard. Maybe the sauce has butter in it. Maybe he bought lettuce >directly from the secular kibbutz. Don't we require hashgacha on all restaurants, fleishig, milchig and pareve? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:13:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 23:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Why is their own religious repugnance not at least as reliable > as beer industry standards or pride in a true bagette (when in > France)? (As a she'eila, not a qushya.) R' Zev Sero wrote: > In both cases we rely not on the owner's pride but on his fear > of ruin should he be caught adulterating his product. Here > you're asking us to rely on his own conscience, which is a > different proposition, though perhaps a stronger one. Maybe > we can, but those cases don't prove it. I think you are both raising good points. I think we should be asking: To what extent can we rely on our understanding of "industry standards" and "fear of ruin" and such? It turns out that Chazal stepped in to protect us from ourselves, using the power of Gezera and Seyag to keep us safe within specific limits. Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it. Basar Shenis'alem Min Haayin is another such seyag. It is not enough that the situation allows me, under Torah law, to presume that this piece of meat is kosher. There must be a "chain of custody" from one reliable Jew to the next, preventing any opportunity for a non-reliable person to exchange the meat for a non-kosher one. Similarly, there are many situations where Bittul works on a Torah level, but it was invalidated by Chazal. I am obviously glossing over many details, but my point is that these are all parts of Chazal's efforts to protect us from our own mistakes. It is in this context that I find Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael to be shockingly lenient. Despite the many kashrus problems that can and do arise in a non-Jewish environment, Chazal never required any hashgacha of the ingredients or keilim. They allowed each individual to rely on his own vigilance for the ingredients, and to rely on "stam keilim einam bnei yoma" for the keilim. The only thing they required was Jewish participation in one small step of the cooking process. And so it remains today. If you meet a non-Jewish farmer who offers you some of the milk that he milked himself for his family, that milk is assur d'rabanan. But if you go into the kitchen of a vegan restaurant (or even a treif restaurant!) and you look around (and you know what to look for!) and you are satisfied, then you are on safe ground. Among the many lessons you can learn from Bishul Yisrael is this: Chazal did NOT forbid us from eating from a treif kitchen. They *could* have chosen to forbid that, but *instead*, they said, "If everything is okay, AND the food is oleh al shulchan melachim, then you just need to do one more thing, and that is to participate in the cooking. But if the food is not oleh al shulchan melachim, then you don't even need to do that." I'm sure that some people have been reading this thread with only an academic interest. "Interesting halachos," they say, "but **I** would never eat in a vegan restaurant." Yes, I'll grant you that. But do you ever get a hot coffee at a convenience store? Or a fountain-dispensed soda at the ballpark? If you avoid such risks then I sincerely applaud you. But if you do these things, it is because you've learned to know what to look out for. You know that certain realities CAN be relied on. The coffee and the soda are much simpler than the vegan restaurant, but it is only a matter of degree. There's no essential difference. Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:51:54 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:51:54 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher Message-ID: Kashrus is not about guarantees. Every time we eat meat, we are verifying that it is ASSUMED to be Kosher because we don't check for EVERY possible Tereifa blemish. Challav Yisroel also based upon the notion that MOST gym are reluctant to add non Kosher when the Mashgiach is only around the corner. Although we KNOW that some are daring enough to try this. ShA YD 134:11 permits buying bread from a gy if we've seen a Yid selling bread to this gy. That's why, in places where the custom is to not eat bread from a gy, if we have wheat over which Yayin Nessech spilled, we may process it into bread and sell it to a gy, PROVIDED no Yidden witness the sale. If Yidden witness the sale, they are permitted to buy that bread. I don't think ANY of today's well recognised K agencies would permit buying bread from a gy just because we witnessed a Yiddle selling him bread. There's no way to identify that particular bread made by the Y. Has the Halacha changed? Have circumstances changed? Or have standards changed? Is the profit making element of Kashrus distorting Halacha? Has the profit making element cultivated a branding and tribal following that obstructs honest discussion of the Halacha? Which is why this same nonsense gets aired again and again - loyalty must be to HKBH and Halacha, not to ones tribe. YD, Siman 114, their hard drinks are Kosher, we're only not permitted to drink it in their shops, and it need not be pointed out that they did not have any health or food guidelines that restricted what they brought into their manufacturing plants. Furthermore, this stuff was on the whole processed in their home kitchens. The only warning (Seif 4) relates to them making substitutions with wine, BUT ONLY when the wine is cheaper than the other drinks they're manufacturing. Furthermore, even where wine is cheaper, when there is a risk that their duplicity will be disclosed, it is Kosher. Seif 5. Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus MYTH - employees cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's equipment. FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees may bring into the premises. MYTH - the infamous, Halachically incorrect, airplane, meat sandwich swap. After returning from washing his hands, he realised he'd left his unsealed meat sandwich exposed to the gym in the next seats, so he chose not to eat it. The gy in the next seat asked about this unusual behaviour and expressed his ASTO-NI-SHIMENT "how wise are your laws, praised be the Gd of the Jews. Whilst you were away, I swapped your meat for mine. I wanted to know what kosher tastes like." Siman 63:2 - Rama, "the custom is to follow the lenient opinion" referring to the Mechaber, "permit Bassar SheNisAlem Mon HaAyin when it's found undisturbed in the place in which was left." See BHeiTev 6 & Shach 9, even if he was not really attentive to it's position and location, as long as it pretty much looks undisturbed, it's OK. And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with disdain. In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much was sold. I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" I can be contacted meirabi at gmail.com if anyone has any suggestions or advice or comfort to offer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 17 19:01:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:01:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A number of people have mentioned Bishul Akum. One needs to know *where* such a vegan restaurant is located. Let us assume it is a Jain restaurant in Delhi. If someone is travelling in India there are already kulos. There is almost nothing that can be bought and one eats out of a suitcase (as I did for many years). As such, one needs to look carefully at each issue and if there are a series of Rabbinic infractions one may be able to be meikel beshaas hadchak. For instance one can commence by knocking out Bishul Akum by following the Baal HaMaor? (not sure if I remember correctly) that its only food cooked in a Goy's home that is assur. Anywhere else us fine because we don't worry about Chasnus. Then one can start to consider the Keilim as 24 hours old and then any laws of bittul etc I mention this only because the *context* of a question is also important. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:54:36 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] blame Message-ID: <4419998f8c234d54a8abd5cfae996dcc@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In my "other" world, I noted quite a few folks whose first reaction to a problem was to find someone (or thing) to blame it on. I tried to encourage my teammates to first find a fix, there's always plenty of time later to apportion blame! Please look at the Yosef story in this context and share your thoughts on all the players' reactions KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Jan 18 10:55:34 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot Message-ID: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo). [A person won't sin if he personally receives no benefit, a person doesn't have the gall to deny a loan to the lender's face.] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 13:08:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] chazakot In-Reply-To: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <324f06a8bff04668bb6a294a9b736c3f@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180118210853.GA14316@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:55:34PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of any social psychology experiments which would : inform on the current status of chazakot of chazal? (e.g., ein adam : choteh v'lo lo, ein adam meiz panav lfnei bal chovo) The BY (EH 17) as explained by the Sefei Chemed (Kelalim 1:388) says that we can no longer rely on ein eishah mei'izah paneha lifnei baalahh, and should only invoke it lechumerah. (I seem to recall the AhS recently (first 37 se'ifim of CM) saying the same about mei'iz panav lifnei ba'al chovo, but now I can't find it.) In contrast to RYBS's objection to R' Rackman's position that "tav lemeisiv" doesn't apply. If you recall, I had first thought that his objection was spoecific to tav lemeisiv, since it can be taken as an expression of "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh", Chavah's onesh in Bereishis 3:16. However, R' Ari Kahn put a transcription up on line : Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis... So it seems leshitaso, the fact that this particular chazaqah is based in a pasuq makes it normal, an example of the general "the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 13:11:40 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 16:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Myths perpetrated to reinforce the profit making element of Kashrus > MYTH - employees?cook their private non-K food with the restaurant's > equipment. > FACT - A) as we saw, Halacha does not support this. > FACT - B) with today's propensity to sue, food establishments are > extremely vigilant to establish, maintain and enforce, very strict > guidelines regarding what goes on in the kitchen and what the employees > may bring into the premises. This is *NOT* a myth, it is a widespread practice in the restaurant industry, and since you supervise restaurants you must know this very well. Another *fact* about modern commercial kitchens is that there is no such thing as a keli that is not ben yomo. In a home kitchen we may have a piece of equipment that is only used for a specific dish, which we might only make twice a month. In a commercial kitchen if a dish is not ordered several times a day it is removed from the menu and if a piece of equipment is not used daily it is removed from inventory. Inventory has a carrying cost. So any purported heter that depends on stam kelim einan bnei yoman must be ruled out. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 18 14:16:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Problematic customs In-Reply-To: <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> References: <566767ee-f237-9e68-826b-8190450086f9@zahav.net.il> <20180107213203.GB24854@aishdas.org> <51d17911-def6-e02a-5d79-cac3f777081f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180118221649.GB2613@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:36:16AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 1/7/2018 11:32 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >OTOH, a Gra or RCBrisker would simply tell you to chuck the minhag. : More or less, someone else told me that it isn't a question of a : source justifying either method, but of an approach. Chassidim will : accept "questionable" customs (of course adding in "what do you mean : "questionable?"", Briskers/Rav Ovadia type Sefardim won't. The model I developed over years of Avodah discussion (largely due to RRWolpoe) was that there are four different kinds of concerns that a poseiq has to weigh. Weigh, as in shiqul hada'as. So that pesaq really involves comparing apples to oranges, and there is no way to reduce it to numbers or an algorithm. Different posqim will emphasize different factors, with certain tendencies among those of certain kehillos. 1- Textual conceptual strength: which sevara / lomdus is more compelling. 2- Textual formal strength: the authority of who said it -- giving precedence to the Rambam or the Rosh over a less influential rishonn, following the Rabim, etc... 3- Mimetic strength: what was the accepted practice? 4- When all else is balanced or nearly so, one may consider aggadic issues to chooce between multiple black-letter viable shitos. And then last, when all else fails (and I don't consider this a 5th concern): 5- We can't come up with a real pesaq, so let's treat it as a safeiq and apply the rules of safeiq. The AhS gives more stregnth to #3; he assumes that any long-standing minhag was peer reviewed by generations of rabbanim and therefore must be justified. And he will create a sevara to justify it, if he can. It can be much weaker than that behind other pesaqim, because the mimetic weight compensates. What I said quoted above is that the Gra or RCBrisker give heavy weight to #1, such that all else rarely come into play. Whereas ROYosef leans heavily on #2 -- what does Maran hold, what do the rov of contemporary rabbanim hold? Yekkes lean heavily on mesorah, so that #2 (returning to the pesaqim of the Maharil, Rama, etc...) carry a lot of weight, as does mimeticism. Chassidim do indeed value mimeticism more than both Litvaks and Sepharadim, but they also value aggadic -- in particular Qabbalistic -- issues. At least, value it more than many other groups. So, while they too give less weight to aggadita (to be clear: I am not accusing anyone of anti-nomianism), Chassidim have a much broader sense of what is balanced enough in terms of black-letter halakhah to consider what fits the Chassidic worldview. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 18 20:36:52 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:36:52 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1542aff4-eda9-c9fa-c94a-5ee1dd1f7bb9@sero.name> On 17/01/18 23:51, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > And when it suits them, the kosher agencies trample upon Halacha with > disdain. > In Melbourne Australia, we have the wicked situation that no Kehilla Rav > is prepared to protest, of meat establishments, owned and operated by > publicly MechaShabbos, without full time Hashgacha and without systems > that permit verification to reconcile, how much was bought with how much > was sold. > > I have communicated with AKO about this matter - as the Kosher > certifiers are members of that group, to be fobbed off by ridiculous > assurances "I have investigated this and everything is 100% Kosher > Mehadrin Glatt Lifnim Mishooras HaDin LeEyLay UleEyLa" All Melbourne butchers and meat establishments have full-time supervision, plus layers of nichnas veyotzei. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From chana at kolsassoon.org.uk Fri Jan 19 04:22:07 2018 From: chana at kolsassoon.org.uk (Chana Luntz) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:22:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim Message-ID: Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in occasionally, and the below caught my eye: RMB writes: > The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat > First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei >chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and >therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link. I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa. RAW then lists off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC - and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the second from the narrative text of the Torah. What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of aiver min hachai! Despite that being very much common currency as to what that requirement is about. Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note actually says it? RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?", and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote this pasuk. If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat, he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted to tyrannise animals. But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping fall?). So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC? Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of additional aspects (chinuch, for example!) (this being true even if we only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey). RAW learns out the Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably). When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. Shabbat Shalom Chana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.tatel at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 10:30:48 2018 From: chaim.tatel at gmail.com (Chaim Tatel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:30:48 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Are Vegan Restaurants Kosher? Message-ID: In our metropolitan area, there are currently two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants (one Indian and one Chinese). We also have a vegan restaurant (Chinese). I was the mashgiach for all of these for many years. Several issues: 1) Staff would bring in food from home and try to cook it in the kosher utensils. One of our certified restaurants lost their cert over this. 2) BUGS in the veggies. Especially cabbage. Several times, I had to get the owner to send the whole case back and try again. 3) In one case, I spent an entire week preparing a restaurant for kosher certification. This included cleaning equipment, kashering where necessary, replacing other items that could not be kashered, and verifying kashrut of the ingredients. There was one ingredient that the owner said was ?critical? to her business. We contacted various kashrut experts who certify products in Asia, and were unable to verify the kashrut of this ingredient. After a very long, hard week, the owner of the restaurant, head of our Vaad, and I had a meeting. No one could change their position, so we ended up not certifying the place. The owner did thank me for the cleaning job I did. Meanwhile, Rabbi Akiva Miller wrote: >Take Chalav Yisrael, for example. Milk is a consumer product which is ostensibly made of one single, simple, kosher ingredient, and in the pre-pasteurization era it wasn't even cooked. But because of the possibility of adulteration, Chazal saw fit to require hashgacha of that single-ingredient product. Even in situations where Torah Law would allow us to rely on the probability that a given container of milk was kosher, Chazal said we *can't* rely on it.> In Europe, there is a move on to use donkey milk: Chazal were not kidding when they prohibited ?Chalav Akum.? Domori Donkey Milk Chocolate https://themeadow.com/products/domori-donkey-milk This milk chocolate bar is infused with donkey milk powder. Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has les fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. And here: https://www.thelocal.ch/20161121/swiss-chocolatier-pioneers-donkeys-milk-chocolate Swiss choc master creates donkey's milk chocolate 21 November 2016 A chocolate maker in Morges, in the canton of Vaud, has produced the country's first ever chocolate made from donkey's milk, thought to be suitable for people who are allergic to cow's milk. G?rard Fornerod created the speciality chocolate in collaboration with the Eurolactis society, also based in Morges, which produces cosmetics and other products using donkey's milk. In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. ?When he returned Pierluigi suggested that I make recipes with his product. I started to make pastries and the result was really good,? Fornerod told Le Tribune de Gen?ve on Sunday. Wanting to create a product with a longer shelf life, Fornerod soon developed a donkey's milk chocolate which is the first such product in Switzerland. Donkey's milk is said to be the closest animal milk to human breast milk. Rich in lactose and fatty acids and lower in fat than other milks, it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. In 2013 the UN Food and Agriculture Organization said donkey's milk has ?particular nutritional benefits? since its proteins may make them more suitable for people who are allergic to cows' milk. Speaking to The Local on Monday, Orunesu said he set up Eurolactis since there was plenty of demand for donkey's milk products but very little on the market. ?It's the closest milk to mother's milk. And that's very good for all problems relating to allergies and for nutrition,? he said. The new donkey's milk chocolate is a first in Switzerland since all chocolate here is made from cow's milk, he said. ?So it's a way of innovating, and above all, it brings a lightness to the chocolate that cow's milk does not have,? he added. Orunesu is confident there is a market for donkey's milk chocolate, particularly among those who are allergic to cow's milk. ?Not only in Switzerland. In the modern world between four and five percent have allergies and that's on the rise.? However, there aren't actually many donkey's milk producers in Switzerland. Though Eurolactis was created in Switzerland, most of the milk comes from Italy, he said. Chaim Tatel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From djhavin at djhavin.com Sat Jan 20 15:27:57 2018 From: djhavin at djhavin.com (David Havin) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:27:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kever Avos Message-ID: <54e19fb2aca2ae9942259574b319f910@mail.gmail.com> I want to know the parameters of *kever avos*. Is it satisfied by burial: - Only immediately adjacent to parents; - Nearby parents but with intervening plots; - Merely in the same cemetery. Rav Elyashiv in *Sefer Tziyunei Halachah*, *Hilchot Aveilut* (Ben Tzion Ha-Kohen Kook, 5776, *Machon Tziyunei Halachah*) pp 116 especially footnote 5 and 118 appears to require burial immediately adjacent to parents. Is anyone aware of differing opinions in the responsa literature? To my surprise, I could not find anything in the index to *Igros Moshe*. David Havin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 08:20:47 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim Message-ID: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? Shavua tov! -- Sholom From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Jan 21 15:01:48 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? Message-ID: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/atKfcN YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 16:00:10 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:00:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:01:48PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please listen to the talk at : https://goo.gl/atKfcN I didn't yet, but I do have a blog post on the subject of chalav yisrael . First, a discplaimer, because I'm about to cite R' Moshe and I don't want to leave a false impression: Colloquially, discussions of the permissibility of drinking USFDA milk tend to start with citing the Igeros Moshe, as though the norm of drinking it originated with Rav Moshe's (RMF) responsa on the subject. But this isn't quite fair. Rather, most American Jews were already drinking what he called chalav hacompanies (company milk, USFDA approved) well before RMF arrived in the US. They had rabbanim who had already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. In the early days of Lakewood they served regular milk and Breakstone cottage cheese. Yes, that stopped when CY became more readily available, but obviously the yeshiva wouldn't have served it had R' Aharon Kotler believed CY was mandatory. (They could have sent someone to a nearby farm -- Lakewood was near farmland back then.) Then there were those who didn't permit ... Now, for the relevant quote: Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting on CY being a leniency. However, Rebbetzin Feinstein did not observe chalav yisrael, and it is well known in their community that Rav Dovid Feinstein to this day drinks "chalav hacompanies". So I wouldn't read that much into the change in language, if it didn't impact what he told his own family! In practice, he treated CY as a personal stringency, even to his last day. Discussion of CY (the Peri Chadash vs the Chasam Sofer onward, emphasis on AhS), elided. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:10:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Importance of Secular Studies for Torah Studies In-Reply-To: References: <1515709334498.49587@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180122021026.GD13068@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:28:31AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : > The following letter appears on pages 94 - 95 of this week's Flatbush : > Jewish Journal. : : Which imho is a long way of saying that the dichotomy between religious : and secular studies in many ways is a false one.... I think that overstates it. One can't follow the Torah without knowing the real world to which to apply it. But one is the goal, and the other, the means. To quote the Tzitz Eliezer (from Harav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch: Mishnaso veShitaso): The Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, is the force that gives form. Form, to Aristotle's thought, means a thing's essential nature -- in distinction to the substance from which it is embodied. Derech Eretz is merely the matter on which Torah works. The function is determined by Torah. The essence is Torah. Secular studies allow us to apply that Torah to more of the world. A means. Tirau baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:00:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : RHS in his sefer (Eretz Hatzvi) points out... : The Gemara in Yevamos 16b brings the opinion that eved v'akum haba al bas : yisrael havlad mamzer... : 1. Even though there is no bias issur since kiddushin are not tofsin it : creates mamzerus. : 2. A Goy and a Jewish woman do not create a mamzer min hatorah only : midrabbanan Seems to me the two opinions revolve around the kelal that only an issur kareis can create a mamzer. (Since we hold like the chakhamim over R' Aqiva.) Qidushin are tofesin between two people for whom relations would be a lav, whereas not between two people for whom relations would always be an issur kareis. "Always" to exclude a chupas nidah, qidushin tofesin because their relations would be permissible at some later point. So, I would suggest that position 1 is saying that the whole question of kareis was really just a stand-in for qiddushin tofesin, and therefore a non-Jewish father would be in the same boat. Whereas position 2 takes the issur qareis as the actual criterion. : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer : even though there was no bias issur.... Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:03:43 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Should One Go To Shul Today? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122020343.GC13068@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:57:44AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mishna Brura 90:52 says: : "See the previous seif katan, and someone sitting at home has the : halacha of going out of his way. Therefore, one who lives in a : settlement, within a mil of where they pray with ten, he has to go : there every day in the morning to pray with ten. But not in the : evening, because one does not have to go on the road at night for the : sake of minyan. And this se'if is an open rebuke to those men who are : in the city and are too lazy to go to shul to daven mincha/maariv." : : Why does the MB make an exception for "the evening, because one does : not have to go on the road at night for the sake of minyan"?... Since his evening is about a minchah-maariv pair, perhaps his concern is tefilah betzibur for minchah? How can you use this MB to derive anything about maariv betzibur? : I would also note that the above is the MB. The Aruch Hashulchan 90:20 : writes: "One who lives in a yishuv/settlement, within a mil of a place : where they pray with ten, is obligated to go, every day, morning and : evening, to pray b'tzibur." The AhS seems to be stricter in two ways... But also, since there are only two possible trips to shul, RYME is also writing about how far to travel to a minchah-maariv pair. For which minchah alone would be sufficient motive. It says nothing about maariv. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he micha at aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering, http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 21 18:53:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Paro / Melech Mitzrayim In-Reply-To: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> References: <20180121162104.TIWN4490.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo110.cox.net> Message-ID: <20180122025316.GA17124@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20:47AM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Sometime we read "Paro," sometimes we read "Melech Mitzrayim", and : sometimes (e.g., the end of the first aliyah in Beshalach) we read : "Paro Melech Mitzrayim." : Is there a rhyme or reason for the various usages? I noticed it's Melekh Mitzrayim who needs to entice the masses to back his plan "hava nischakma lo". Whereas it's Par'oh who hides his trips to the men's room. I think the Torah uses one to refer to the king of Mitzrayim when he's acting like a melekh, and the other when he's acting like the son of Ra who could just declare things as a moshel. Etymologically, Par'oh means "house + big", and refers to the current holder of the dynasty more than the person in-and-of itself. And the whole "son of Ra" thing is a claim about the origins of the royal house, not the individual. But I didn't ever chase down every usage to check this idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 21 19:45:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:45:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <20180122000010.GA21207@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <4a6a01e7-5e5e-217f-5921-32e9c7f0f85c@sero.name> On 21/01/18 19:00, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Also, it's clear Rav Moshe's language shifted as chalav Yisrael (CY) > became more available, in the earliest responsum treating CY as a > stringency above the baseline (Igeros Moshe YD 1:47-49), the middle > more equivocal (2:31,35) and the latest (4:5) more like not insisting > on CY being a leniency. You're starting one siman too late. Any survey of RMF's shita has to start with siman 46, where he expresses astonishment at the asker's expression "for those who are careful with stam milk that comes from nochrim" and explicitly writes that "all Ashkenazi Jews" pasken like the Chasam Sofer and not like the Radvaz and Pri Chodosh. So the baseline is that CY is an obligation, not a hiddur, but commercial milk is not included in the gezera, as he goes on to explain in the next three simanim. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 02:36:37 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 05:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 07:00 PM 1/21/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They had rabbanim who had > already ruled it was permissible, such as R' Dov Revel, R' Yisrael > Avraham Abba Krieger, (among other greats of early 20^th century > American Judaism whom time has forgotten because the huge waves of > post-War immigrants to the US never met them) R' Breuer, R' Moshe > Soloveitchik and his son R' JB Soloveitchik. What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav Stam was permissible? Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about Rabbi Aryeh Leib Malin that will appear in two weeks in the JP. Reb Leib, Reb Moshe and Chalav Akum After WW II was over some of the Mir students who were in Shanghai came to America. They found themselves living in a country were the level of Jewish observance was often very low. ?This was not a shock to the Mirrer talmidei chachamim, who knew the scourge of this European ?Enlightenment? - inspired progressive Judaism that sought to clothe non-Jewish ideologies in more-or-less Jewish garb. By contrast, the Mirrer talmidim held fast to the Tree of Life that was Torah through thick and thin. ?Yet they thought they had found other grounds to be shocked and concerned: In this environment of hefkeirus (in the spirit of ?anything goes?), the Mirrers found that even the small Torah-true Jewish community was drinking chalav akum (milk not supervised by a Jew at the time of milking), something that in Europe would have been totally unacceptable. They made inquiries regarding the situation and they were told, ?Our Rabbi, R? Moshe Feinstein, says this is permitted in America today.? ?The Mirrer scholars had not yet heard of the chashuve R' Moshe Feinstein, and the renowned Mashgiach, R? Yechezkel (Chatzkel) Levenstein, delegated one of the outstanding Torah scholars at the Mir, R? Leib Malin, to look into the matter. He phoned R? Moshe, who was at a bungalow colony, and a heated debate ensued, as R? Leib would not accede to R? Moshe's point of view. ?Finally, R? Moshe asked him, ?Have you heard of R? Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the dayan of Vilna?? ?Yes, of course I have!? answered R' Leib, ?We were chavrusas in Grodno before I went to the Mir." And he added the usual adjunct of European Jews in 5706 when speaking of a Jewish person they had known before the war: ?Is he still alive?!?? ?He is indeed alive,? replied R? Moshe, ?and he is right here in the bungalow colony. Do you trust his opinion?? ??Certainly,? replied R? Leib, knowing that R? Gustman was also an admirer of R? Chatzkel. ?Well, I have discussed this issue with him over the past few weeks, and R? Gustman agrees that the milk is kosher.? R? Moshe called R? Gustman over to speak with R' Leib by phone, and the great dayan explained R' Moshe's position: Under the prevailing conditions in the United States and since the milking met strict U.S. regulations, the milk was permitted despite not having Jewish supervision or milking. R? Leib accepted the ruling, and the matter was settled.?[i] [i] Rav Gustman, by David Page, Mesorah Publications, 2017, pages 121 ? 123. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 06:40:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav : Stam was permissible? Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it came to chalav yisrael (CY). While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger We look forward to the time micha at aishdas.org when the power to love http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Jan 22 08:38:03 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:40 AM 1/22/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:37AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: What is your basis for asserting that Rav Breur ruled that Chalav >: Stam was permissible? > >Evidence is, R' Breuer (RMB) was in the "good chumerah" camp when it >came to chalav yisrael (CY). First of all, how does Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer, ZT"L, come to be abbreviated as RMB? I do not believe that this is accurate. From https://goo.gl/ur8iNi TO THE EDITOR: (of Hamodia Magazine) In the article ?Kashrus Thrives in America? in the Parashas Re?eh/August 27 issue, Yitzchok Cohen writes: ?In those years there were relatively few American Jews who were stringent in their kashrus observance, and there were hardly any farms that were willing to commit themselves to providing chalav Yisrael. After great effort, the Tzehlimer Rav succeeded in producing the first line of chalav Yisrael products in America. The line went by the name ?Kahal,? and all the strictly observant Jews in America knew that this was the only brand that was 100-percent kosher. The Kahal company later became the J&J Dairy Co.? There is something more to the story of the production of chalav Yisrael in America. In 1882 Sholom Yitzchok (Isaac) and (Shifra) Rivka Raskas immigrated from Kovno, Lithuania, to St. Louis to join members of Mrs. Raskas?s family, the Sarasohns. They lived about ten blocks from the Mississippi River. Isaac started selling milk. After the turn of the century, the family moved to 1313 North Newstead, which at that time was still a semi-rural area on the western fringe of St. Louis, and began a small dairy that eventually developed into a large company. The Raskases were sincerely committed Orthodox Jews. Pictures of their parents show that they both came from learned Litvishe families. They produced what was probably the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, long before the Tzehlimer Rav arrived here. Furthermore, one should not overlook the role that Harav Dr. Yosef Breuer played in the production and distribution of chalav Yisrael. In Rav Breuer: His Life and Legacy, we are told, ?Rav Breuer was in the forefront of the efforts to make chalav Yisrael milk products commercially available in the United States ? a policy that was almost unheard of in America in the early 1940s.? A footnote to this statement adds, ?The first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America, Balsam Farms, under the supervision of the Tzehlimer Rav, began production in the late 1930s. This milk was not available in Manhattan due to lack of demand. In 1940 Rav Breuer arranged for it to be sold in Washington Heights, and when Balsam could not keep up with the demand, made arrangements for supervision of what became known as Kahal Dairies. Later, J&J milk came under the Kehillah?s [KAJ?s] supervision.? Thus, the Tzehlimer Rav first supervised Balsam milk, not Kahal milk, which came later. Also, it is clear from the information about the Raskas dairy that Balsam Farms was not the first commercially available chalav Yisrael in America. PROFESSOR YITZCHOK LEVINE >While RMB made CY available in Manhattan, KAJ never was maqpid on CY as >a general norm. I was told by a number of products of KAJ, people who >are now yeshivish and maqpidim on CY themselves (which is why they're >living in Passaic), that this reflects R Breuer's own position. As you can see from my letter to the editor of the Hamodia Magazine, this does not seem to be accurate. >Tir'u baTov! >-Micha > >-- >Micha Berger We look forward to the time >micha at aishdas.org when the power to love >http://www.aishdas.org will replace the love of power. >Fax: (270) 514-1507 - William Ewart Gladstone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:02:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or Recommended? In-Reply-To: <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1516575686638.96424@stevens.edu> <3C.7E.03752.BCEB56A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180122144007.GA27832@aishdas.org> <59.3A.03148.183166A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180122170241.GA17081@aishdas.org> There is nothing in your self quote that shows that KAJ held that CY was iqar hadin. And if you ask anyone from that community, there is no norm of treating it as such. If R' Breuer wanted it to be available, it was for people like himself who were machmirim. Not because he held that CY was mandatory in the American metzi'us. Or else his community would have been keeping CY before their grandchildren sold out to yeshivishness. Repeating the story again doesn't change the substance of my argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 09:09:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:09:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180122170926.GA22320@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:44:03PM +0200, R Efraim Yawitz replied to me on Areivim: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:14 PM,Micha Berger wrote: :> :> The context is addressing that very question for someone touched by abuse :> themselves and is wondering whether the frequency of such things in our :> community doesn't argue against the Torah's claims of being able to refine :> its practitioners. He asked: : Is there some statistical evidence that this is more prevalent in "our" : community? First, I gave the context and target audience for a reason. What I was trying to do in that piece was connect to someone whose faith in Yahadus was shaken by abuse by a religious figure in their life -- parent, rebbe, whomever. My point was to get the abused not to judge Yahadus by the culture that allowed the abuser to thrive, and could very well still be making excuses for him. I did rewrite the thesis of that chapter in a positive tenor, as a manifesto that appeared on Torah Musings . This particular argument was inappropriate to make in public if it is not written to an audience already sold on the premise. Even though true, why do I need to be the community's kateigor? Second, I didn't say it was "more prevalent", but that one would need statistics to see whether it was less prevalent. And that alone is a problem. To quote more of what I wrote on Areivim: :> The Torah is describing a uniqueness that should be self-evident :> and obvious at first glance, without requiring a systematic study. The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. There is a HUGE investment in time and effort (and money) to conform. So, if a significant percentage of the O community is keeping the Torah as Intended, shouldn't the difference in the demographics of that community be self-evident, something to justify that investment? How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller than the demanded investment? If the difference between those who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a different religious commuunity of a similar income profile -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? Is it tenable to argue that Torah, if properly followed, is for the person to be nif'al al pi pe'ulosav only in miniscule non-obvious ways? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From marty.bluke at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 09:58:08 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:58:08 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > : If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since > : kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a > mamzer > : even though there was no bias issur.... > > Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > RHS does in that article. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Jan 22 10:21:00 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] New Cancer Treatment In-Reply-To: References: <20180122020020.GB13068@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180122182100.GC32039@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:58:08AM -0800, Marty Bluke wrote: : On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :>: If we apply these 2 opinions to IVF, according to the first answer since :>: kiddushin are not tofsin (since she is married) the child would be a mamzer :>: even though there was no bias issur.... :> Can we extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? : RHS does in that article. That answer would be fine lehalakhah, but not really for a discussion forum. So, let me rephase: How does RHS reason it is valid to extrapolate from "no bi'as issur" to no bi'ah? Either way, I really replied to get opinions on the chiddush that the two shitos in Tosados were discussing whether Chakhamim limited mamzeirus to relations that are an issur kareis (other than nidah), or whether they limited it to relations between people for whom qedushin would not be tofesin -- which for Jews means the relations would be an issur qareis (same exception). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 17:00:21 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:00:21 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: It is important to know that milk even from a Gyshe dairy farm that has non-Kosher milking animals, is Kosher by Torah law. Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. So we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we would ask him for a pound of his cheese. Not only had the milk used to make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher and Chazal did-not/could-not include it in the ChYisrael decree because everyone knows that cheese cannot be made from milk of non-Kosher animals and had Chazal tried to ban it, it likely would have failed as the decree to ban oil processed by gyim failed - and it is interesting to note that this oil was processed in the gys domestic kitchen, not a dedicated factory as was the Pas Palter. And now, we are supposed to ignore the Halacha that we mentioned earlier re wine substituted for fruit beverages, because some new-fangled initiative seeks to make a business of donkey milk which is rare and more importantly, far more expensive. The advertising is driven by A] businesses trying to make money persuading people that donkey/pig/hose/camel milk is superior - with some weird unsubstantiated research that it closely resembles human milk, that it cures pimples, flatulence etc. - and B] those who are trying to promote Kosher and ChYisrael. Their hearts may be in the right place, but that is about it. The Kosher agencies HHUs present rubbish like this - Interesting fact about donkey milk: It is the closest to human milk for nutritional values and chemical features. It has less fats and more lactose than any other milk. Cleopatra used to bathe in donkey milk to preserve her legendary beauty. it is thought to boost the immune system and may be suitable for those who are allergic to cow's milk. We will even use the pope to promote ChYisrael - In 2014 Pierluigi Orunesu, founder of Eurolactis, hit the news when he travelled to the Vatican to present his products to Pope Francis, who revealed that he was fed donkey's milk as a child growing up in Argentina. And dont forget the ancient Greeks and Egyptians considered it an elixir, and Cleopatra famously bathed in the stuff. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 23 06:23:13 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22/01/18 20:00, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > And that is why Chazal did-not/could-not include in that same decree a > ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer. No, they made it a separate decree, so that even if the nochri made cheese with cholov yisroel it would *still* be forbidden. > So we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor the milking and then whilst on the way out we > would ask him for a pound of his cheese. We certainly would not! > Not only had the milk used to > make the cheese not been monitored, it was made with rennet from a > non-Kosher species or a Neveilah animal - and yet it was Kosher On the contrary, if cheese is made with rennet derived from a neveila or treifa, let alone a temei'ah, it's forbidden even *without* the decree against gevinas akum, and indeed according to most rishonim this is the reason for the decree. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 10:24:36 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Below is the response to a question I sent to someone who knew Rav Breuer's positions on many halachic issues. The person has asked not to be quoted, but I assure you that this person was very close to Rav Breuer and knew his positions on many matters. I wrote the following to this person: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ. Is this true? The response is In response: R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a 'chumra.' If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's permitting non-cholov (stam). I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla. At that time the only other kosher milk was under the Tzelemer Rav. Please do not quote me by name. Thank you! YL From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 11:42:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav : Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by : members of KAJ. ... : In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: :> I think you know that one of the first acts R. Breuer did for Kashrus was to :> arrange for kosher milk for the members of his Kehilla... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From larry62341 at optonline.net Tue Jan 23 14:46:19 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:42 PM 1/23/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:36PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: >: Someone on an email list claimed that Rav Breuer held that drinking Chalav >: Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by >: members of KAJ. >... >: In response: >:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >:> 'chumra.' >: >:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >:> permitting non-cholov (stam). > >I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. I disagree. >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for >a trip? You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now >thrice-cited story: You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response says. In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. Also, apparently your Passaic sources about his position are in error. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 23 15:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:46:19PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote: : >One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a : >trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really : >held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for : >a trip? : : You have ignored the part about Chalav Yisroel not being available : in one's neighborhood. This is not for a short time generally. If chalav yisrael is iqar hadin, then we're talking about something is treif derabbanan, like chicken parmesan. You don't bend it even if it's not available where you live. But in any case, you simply walked away from the case in hand. RYB didn't limit his license to rely on R' Moshe to cases where you can't get any where you live. He said even on a trip one may do so. It's that case, the trip, that would never have been permitted had he held that there was a real issur, but some shitah he didn't buy into permitted. Another litmus test.... If you accidentally mixed poultry and meat in your own pot, you would kasher it. Does you source recall anyone in KAJ being told they have to kasher their posts after making a mistake with chalav hacompanies? BTW, Chabad does. (Although the dishes of someone who does consume chalav hacompanies are different, but that's a whole different topic.) : >As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one : >very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now : >thrice-cited story: : You are disregarding the email response I received. Rav Breuer held : keeping Chalav Yisroel was a halacha, not a chumra, as the response : says. This person says so. But since I do not know whether this person heard as much first-hand or read it from RYBs' writings, I am free to believe he is mistaken. Yes, I am disragarding the conclusion drawn in an email that opens by saying RYB held it was assur and then describes RYB as ruling in a way inconsistent with that opening. : In light of this I think that you have to modify what you wrote in : your article on Aspaqlaria regarding Rav Breuer's position on : drinking only Chalav Yisroel if it is available. You're just insisting that your anynymous source is more authoritative than mine, despite the email you showed us seeming to me to undermine its own thesis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 18:20:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > How would you justify assuming the payoff is so much smaller > than the demanded investment? If the difference between those > who follow sheqer -- the crime or volunteerism stats in a > different religious commuunity of a similar income profile > -- aren't visibly worse, without needing formal pollsters, > than following the Emes, what exactly is Yahadus about? In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis. And perhaps, for this simple reason, the effort is doomed to failure, since Hashem will do what is necessary to balance things out. But then I realized, as RMB put it: > The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are overwhelming. Can anyone count the stories in which a person was seen being unethical, and an investigation revealed that he wasn't Jewish after all? The extent to which such stories are literal or metaphor is totally irrelevant; the point is that there *IS* an expectation for the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. So instead, I'll try a different approach... > ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience to the Creator. Not because of any promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because of (in no particular order) gratitude for my life and all that came with it, and because (as one cynic once put it) "when all else fails, read the instructions". If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be visible, even without statisticians. The difference is of cause and effect. When I see a preacher exhorting people to join his religion in order to get a good afterlife, I am not impressed, because I see it as selfish and non-altruistic. When someone wants us to be frum to make a Kiddush Hashem, I see it as a little better, but it is only a matter of degree. Granted that it isn't selfish, but it's not Lishmah either. If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is about"? Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for doing them. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:24:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal was not. (Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do not know when or why it changed.) Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 15:49:37 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys Message-ID: . R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > Chazal made their food decrees in order to build barriers to > socially isolate us Yidden from our Gyshe neighbours. The Kashrus > aspects were in the main, arguments to persuade us to accept them. > > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, to successfully promulgate > Chalav Yisrael and ensure it gained acceptance. Do you have any evidence for this? It seems to me that the evidence is exactly the reverse: Chazal were quite clear that the reasoning behind Bishul Akum and Pas Akum (and a few other halachos, but those will suffice for now) were to "socially isolate" us. They saw no need for additional persuasion to ensure acceptance. In fact, a few days ago, I posted about the fact that Bishul Akum and Pas Akum specifically allow us to enter territory that is somewhat dangerous from an ingredient and keilim perspective. Just to give one tiny example: If Bishul Akum was instituted for kashrus reasons, it is incredible that Chazal allowed us to merely start the fire [or, for you sefardim, to place the pot on the fire] and then walk away. They would have required the Jew to remain on-site for the remainder of the cooking -- surely to prevent treif ingredients, but at least to insure that the fire didn't go out and get relit!!! But NO, they made one tiny requirement to insure a mashehu of social isolation, and specifically allowed us to rely on our own common sense for the kashrus aspects. If Chalav Akum and Gevinas Akum were for social isolation, don't you think they would have said so? Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 00:33:49 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:49 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources Message-ID: I apologise for not providing sources for my earlier post RaMBaM MAssuros after ruling that foods produced by non-K animal species or Tereifah K species, are not K, Min HaTorah 3:12 - milk from non-K species does not congeal [produce cheese] and if a mixture of milk from K and non-K animals is used to make cheese the curds form exclusively from the Kosher milk all the non-K milk drains off with the whey 3:13 - therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has not used non-K rennet and yet it is Kosher LeMeHadRin. It is astonishing to observe the contortions of those who feel challenged by these simple truths. So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. The Halacha has not changed, cheese just like butter and yoghurt [RaMBaM MAssuros 3:15] need not be made from ChYisrael. Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we would purchase a pound of his cheese. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 06:57:54 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:57:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: R' YL's contact said: >> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a >> 'chumra.' >> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available >> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's >> permitting non-cholov (stam). R' MB replied: > I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. > One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a > trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really > held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for > a trip? > As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one > very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now > thrice-cited story:" I dont see any inconsistency at all. The paradigm of ikar hadin\chumra\kula is more of a stereotype than a reality. For R. Breuer to hold that CY is required by halacha, rather than a chumra, would not mandate a she'as hadechak situation to justify drinking chalav stam if he held that there was sufficient weight behind the meikel opinion. Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. If he didn't hold that CY was a halacha, rather a chumra b'alma, why would he go to all that trouble to obtain CY for the community? There were surely more pressing issues. The anonymous R Breuer expert seems on the mark given the evidence. BW Ben From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 07:26:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 03:33, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > ?- therefore [Yitten HaDin=it makes sense? It seems the RaMBaM uses > this expression but once in MTorah] *all* milk in the possession of a gy > is prohibited as he may have adulterated it with non-K milk > however the gys cheese is permitted since non-K milk will not produce cheese > > It is clear this gys cheese is Kosher in spite of being made with animal > rennet as the gy has not contacted the OU to get rennet with a Hechsher. > nor has he employed a Mashgiach supervisor to ensure and verify he has > not used non-K rennet No, it is not. How do you know he used animal rennet, and if he did how do you know he didn't use it from a geshochtene animal? That's why it's not assur min haTorah, but the chachamim forbade it, regardless of what sort of rennet he used. > So there we have it - Chazal did-not/could-not include in the Ch > Yisrael decree a ban on cheese manufactured by the gy dairy farmer - > because everyone knows that even if the gy uses a mixture of K and non-K > milks, the cheese making process filters out all the non-K milk. First, it doesnt' filter out all the non-K milk; there is still the leftover milk which remains on the surface and is forbidden. Second, if the milk was not produced specifically for cheese, you can't kasher it by making cheese out of it. (Rama end of 115:1) > In other words there is no need and there was therefore no decree > ever made that required cheese be made from ChYisrael. Not true at all. Rama 115:2 explicitly requires that lechatchila cheese, *even when made by a Jew* must be made only with CY, and if it was not he permits it only bediavad. > Accordingly, until the cheese decree was enacted, we would pop over > to Xtopher to monitor our pint of milk and then, on the way out, we > would purchase a pound of his cheese. What makes you think the gezera on milk came first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 08:55:54 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: References: <20180123230303.GC31697@aishdas.org> <59.21.04056.EFD776A5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180123194231.GB6475@aishdas.org> <1E.BA.03203.55BB76A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124165554.GB26934@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:57:54PM +0000, Ben Bradley wrote: : . Because then it wouldn't be a technical kula requring snifim : k'hakeil, classic she'as hadechak etc, it would just be a more meikel : opinion which could be held with in minimally non-ideal circumstances. As in, I don't have any milk for my trip? RYB's position is far short of requiring a she'as hadechaq. It is closer to "try your hardest to have CY when available." For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:52:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124155213.GE7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51. : : RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem"... : and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon : HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as : unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the : second from the narrative text of the Torah. ... : When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more : obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the : meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it. The whole enterprice of route 1, identifying Retzon H' from halakhah, requires taking a non-legal approach to halakhah, so we're dropping precision. I am not sure how that works, how one would decide which details are defining as to the moral intent of the din, and which can be generalized beyond. For example AMhC includes an eiver removed while under sedation. Or even if a non-Jew took the eiver off after shechitah but before the animal stopped moving. (For Jews, once shechitah defines death, it's not min hachai.) And ZBC does not prohibit use of the final product. Whereas AmhC is all about use of the final product, and says nothing about a ben Noach making an eiver min hachai, nor for that matter getting hana'ah other than akhilah. Maybe it's only incidentally ZBC reducing, like shechitah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You want to know how to paint a perfect micha at aishdas.org painting? It's easy. http://www.aishdas.org Make yourself perfect and then just paint Fax: (270) 514-1507 naturally. -Robert Pirsig From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 07:33:05 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Kinapping (was: Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124153305.GD7828@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:22:07PM +0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on : the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them : beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping : fall?)... My first thought was that it would fall under geneivah. My second thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping, as the diberos only include dinei nefashos. AND, the 10 diberos are considered avos that include all 613 mitzvos. (R Saadia Gaon, in his Azharos, goes through the exercise, but hebrewbooks.org's copy of Qoveitz Maasei Yedei Geonim appears to be broken.) So maybe simple theft falls under kidnapping! My third thought was that "lo signov" in the 10 diberos is the hasra'ah for kidnapping someone into the slave trade, as a person is only killed for kidnapping if they then sell their victim. Which leaves me either back at ground zero or at my "first thought". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Jan 24 09:57:58 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:57:58 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael - Donkey Milk - its for donkeys In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <908e9523-9f79-b1b4-70be-cf8bf49d5ad4@zahav.net.il> Point of order: A woman I knew who is a giyoret and had a farm in South Africa told me that there is no such thing as milking a pig. Google tells me that while it is possible it is very difficult.? Better to use camel milk in the example. Ben On 1/23/2018 3:00 AM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > So it is more accurate to say that Chazal used the ikky value of > possibile adulteration with pig milk, From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 11:03:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Purpose of Yahadus and Crime Statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180124190303.GE25228@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 09:20:22PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In an earlier draft of this post, I wrote that if religious Jews are : so much more ethical than others, and that this effect were so visible : that it would be obvious even without formal statisticians, it would : pose serious problems for Bechira Chofshis... Why? It's not miraculous. Nor would it creat a taavah to be ethical. Either way, no need to dwell on your hava amina. : But then I realized, as RMB put it: :> The Torah describes itself to be a means of producing better people. : I could ask him for sources, but why bother? Even if the sources in : Torah Sheb'ksav could be debated, the sources in Chazal are : overwhelming... the point is that there *IS* an expectation for : the typical Jew to be noticably better in these areas. I was making a stronger point when I asked: :> ... ... what exactly is Yahadus about? : : I can't speak for anyone else, but for *me*, Torah is about obedience : to the Creator... As an end in itself? Or : If we would simply put in the time and effort to follow the User's : Manual (a/k/a Torah), this universe would run as it ought to. That : would include everything that Rabbi Berger expects from a group of : ethical Torahdik people. I do agree with him, that if enough of us : were doing Torah the way we ought to be doing it, the effects WOULD be : visible, even without statisticians. So then we're in agreement. That sentence was my whole point. : The difference is of cause and effect... If Shmiras Hamitzvos is a : tool to a more socially equitable world, is that "what Yahadus is : about"? I am saying yes. I am working from ther position that the User Manual is about how to be better people. Sheleimus. Notice that this isn't as specific as being ethically better. However, that has to be at least part of it, and I would suggest that in Litvisher derakhim, is what Yahadus is about. With the Pulmus haMussar being over whether we need to work at it consciously, or we should just take care of learning and it will happen on its own. To quote R' Yitzchaq Volozhiner's intro to his father's Nefesh haChaim, this is the point of Yahadus according to the founder of Yeshivish (and an ancestor of Mussar): He regularly rebuked me, because he saw that I did not participate in the pain of others. And these were his constant words to me, "This is the entire person: One is not created for oneself, but to benefit others to the full extent of one's potential." Along similar lines, someone as anti-Mussar and as intellectually oriented as R' Chaim Brisker wanted the words "Rav Chessed" as the only compliment on his matzaivah. And course, I have to quote R' Shimon Shkop: BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His "Image" and in the likeness of His "Structure", and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities. (There is a much longer argument for it in my manuscript, when I write about this first part of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher.) So, where I come from, all of Yahadus is about being more ehrlach. And this is merely taking Hillel's "de'alakh sani", R' Aqiva's or Ben Azzai's opinions of the Torah's "kelal gadol" at face value. I realize that other derakhim might object to turning bein adam laMaqom into a means of better accomplishing bein adam lachaveiro. (For example, even within Mussar, R' Wolbe's Olam haYedidus makes BALM, BALC and bein adam le'atzmo are three equal centers of value.) For that matter, not every rishon does take those gemaros at face value. 70 panim laTorah. : Maybe I'm being too demanding, and too simplistic. So let me be clear: : If a person is careful with his Bein Adam L'chaveiro because he knows : that's Hashem's plan to avoid strife and make a better world, that is : a truly great thing. My only point is that if the project doesn't seem : to be working, he must keep in mind that the better world would only : have been a SIDE BENEFIT to his mitzvos. It is not the ikar reason for : doing them. And I disagree, claiming it's the primary point of those mitzvos, the ikar reason why Hashem suggested these actions and not some other set of commands. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 12:23:09 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:23:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote: >I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know >this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were >under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal >was not. > >(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do >not know when or why it changed.) IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 24 14:01:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it : is permitted, because milk from non-kosher animals will not : "coagulate." I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this. The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue (muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein. More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid". In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese. However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has been pig cheese , but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.) I came up with 2 possibilities. 1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it in a taqanah. Or 1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in, they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility. 2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk. But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look for CY cheese. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 14:17:25 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel In-Reply-To: <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> References: <14aea6f0a75c4909b11ae463f01a85ac@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <42.80.03148.D2BE86A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180124220116.GB6194@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav > aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice > among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look > for CY cheese. AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it. (Or, according to the Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, but the general psak today is not like the Rama.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 15:44:07 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger asked: > For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be > for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R > ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans > get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee > could be consumed with soy or almond milk.... The Star-K's page about Starbucks (https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still... > All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the > following conditions: > > ... ... OR > ... ... OR > When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling > creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is > readily available) during which one need not be concerned with > the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means > when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be > driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Jan 24 14:49:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:49:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel Message-ID: I received the following from a grandson of Rav Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name. YL I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted. The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer? held that drinking Chalav Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has given me a hard time with the response I posted from someone close to Rav Breuer, so I wrote to you. He (Micha) wrote In response: :> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a :> 'chumra.' : :> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available :> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's :> permitting non-cholov (stam). I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent. One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for a trip? As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now thrice-cited story: I have had some back and forth with him, and that is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,? but not ikar hadin. Would you care to add something so that I can finally straighten this fellow out? This grandson of Rav Breuer replied I cannot help if the man does not understand how halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in the case of USDA supervised milk the din of Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra. R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel. I know the individual who went on trips and was permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on coffee which he could only drink with milk. He could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency. I trust you will not use my name and I really do not want to get involved in what will be an endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:22:45 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:22:45 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What Message-ID: personal experiences are a moving tribute but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by stories, and Halacha by legends. R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. Two points, - the threat of losing certification is REAL - the workers tried nonetheless - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large dose of salt. Second point Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not and is not supposed to be, a guarantee. But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought with how much meat was dispensed] did not make. You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html] Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not fantasy. :) And have a look at these related communications with AKO [ http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html] = = = = = Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and kashering equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered, verifying kashrut of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was unavailable with Kosher certification. Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started, you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes. One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence. = = = = = here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the veggies. Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 24 18:37:09 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian > restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis > mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils. > He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this. > > Two points, > - the threat of losing certification is REAL > - the workers tried nonetheless > - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware > that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach > was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their > boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather > large dose of salt. It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with things they've been told not to do. The workers don't understand that it's a serious offence. They think the rabbi won't find out, and that even if he does find out nothing will happen to them. But that's all with reference to certified places. The topic we're discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so. > But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though > the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant > observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations > presented as facts Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me. My information comes from very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening. The plain fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 00:41:46 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:46 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources Message-ID: Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH. It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours. And we may just as easily, perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need to further bolster their policy of social isolation? Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough - it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation. Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens. On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2. Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the cheese is K by Torah Law. However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in making it. There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. [BTW we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and requires Kosher participation] Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable] Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has some form of guarantee. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 05:47:16 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79acc1cf-7433-b2e3-36c7-57c72e2fb82e@sero.name> On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was > accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly > persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. That is *not* what the gemara says. The gemara says it was the practice in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year. > So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation. On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and isolation is *not* one of them. The majority of rishonim ruled like Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a non-kosher animal. This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri (or, according to the Rama, without supervision). > Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for > drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it > was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.] > Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese > MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at > all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael. And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by turning it into cheese. Therefore there is something wrong with your reasoning. For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership. Therefore, until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they forbade it. > Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes > that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has > probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah; there are many cheeses that are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made with 100% kosher milk). > However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to > guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher > rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, > it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? > Participate in making it. According to the Shach, yes. The Rama disagrees. > There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas > Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese. > [...] > Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; > there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - > it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher. No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk. He paskens like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet. Therefore, he says, if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK. 2) because the Rama paskens the milk must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From emteitz at mail.gmail.com Thu Jan 25 08:08:24 2018 From: emteitz at mail.gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:08:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days on Avodah. As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum, in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam (or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil. The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act -- a yotzei v'nichnas. Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity, Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem, but the decree itself was no marriage for three months. Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur. However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA. It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all circumstances. One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus prohibited in all circumstances. Another may hold that one should rely on the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should not rely on that opinion. In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held chaleiv akum to be assur. But the statement is also irrelevant to our discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not chalav stam is chaleiv akum.. It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence absolutely prohibited. EMT . From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 10:20:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:20:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180125182031.GD29567@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:08:24PM +0200, elazar teitz wrote: : My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at : odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days : on Avodah. I don't think so. There is a language difference in that in coloquial discussion "chalav yisrael" means "milk certified as watched by a Jew" and "chalav stam" means other potentially kosher milk. (I have been using RMF's "chalav hacompanies" or, when I feel that phrase was overused, "USFDA milk".) But the points you make are (or are mostly) spelled out in the post Prof Levine and I are debating. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/chalav-yisrael The discussaion was about my intro praragraph, in which I back up the claim that RMF was not innovating a pesaq but publishing an explanation of a commonly accepted pesaq. Among the names I list as prededing R' Moshe was R' Breuer, but only because my list includes rabbanim who advocating avoiding chalav hacompanies if they did not consider it an actual issur. Obviously a rav who made Jew-watched milk available for his qehilah within a year of so of reaching the sates thought that the issue was important. Albeit not necessarily mei'iqar hadin. Prof Levin and his source believe that RYB did consider it an actual violation of the gezeira to rely only on the USFA. (Or in colloquial Judeo-English: He held that CY was iqar hadin. As again, the colloquial use of "CY" isn't the technical use, or else there would be little information added in the sentence "He keeps chalav yisrael.") The point of contention is that RYB did allow someone on a trip or who lived in an area where milk wasn't available to rely on R' Moshe's teshuvah. An issue that I haven't raised before is that this restatement of R Breuer's position is an anachronism. R' Moshe's earliest teshuvah on USDA certificied milk was written 15 Sivan 5714, with followups on RC Av and 2 Elul. RYB had his own position by then. He could have been referring to aforementioned prior pesaqim, though. So, back on track... I felt that if it were to be treated as an actual issur derabbanan, a trip wouldn't be sufficient reason to go hunting senifim lehakeil. Not even sure living where it was unavailable would be. RAM posted a parallel example where the star-K said they have a general rule that unavailablity due to travel a "she'as hadechaq". But I was thinking of heskhsheirim like CHK (Crown Heights Kosher), that would no faster find a heter for USFDA milk than for chicken parmesan. To me, that's a necessary consequence of believing it's really a full violation of a gezeira. In response, Prof Levine's source reframed RYB's position as applying only to a trip in a special case, where coffe was necessary and black wasn't an option. But I see no indication of that in any other statement of what he held, just that one can rely on RMF if there is no "CY" (Jew literally watched milk) available. Nor is that what is actually practiced in the "Breuers" community, as reported to me by members of noted Frankfurt families (who themselves are now yeshivish and "keep CY", ie don't consider USFDA supervision sufficient). CC-ing RMPoppers now. Now that I recapped that thread of the discussion with an eye to those who may have misunderstood due to the heavy use of poor colloquialisms... I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Leshitaso, both the PC and the CS hold you only need a way to know the source of the milk, and not have a Jew literally watch. The CS, because of the taqnah. But you need to know anyway because of the original issur deOraisa! If you can't get the odds of consuming milk from a beheimah temei'ah down to negligable levels, who would matir it even before the gezeira? So what did the gezeira add? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of micha at aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain, http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 11:54:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a : serious concern no gezera was necessary. How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have to ask you to explain further. : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 11:33:01 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> On 25/01/18 11:08, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek > that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that > is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach > nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. That is not my understanding. AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a serious concern no gezera was necessary. AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the Radbaz/Pri Chadash. RMF utterly rejects this position, champions that of the Chasam Sofer that CY is a halacha, but says that commercial milk *is* CY. Further, he must have publicised this position long before the published teshuvos, because in the first teshuvah he says there is no such thing as an observant Jew who is not makpid on CY, and those who drink commercial milk are relying on his psak. On 25/01/18 13:20, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand RMF's position. If rei'yah could be fulfilled with > yedi'ah, based on his comparison to eidus, the gezeira doesn't seem to > add anything beyond the de'orasa, and the machloqes between the Peri > Chadash (really the Radbaz, the PC's maqor) and the Chasam Sofer loses > any nafqa mina lemaaseh. Mid'oraisa no yediah is necessary. If the circumstances are that there is no serious concern, one may drink milk. If there is one, then whether one may drink it anyway mid'oraisa depends on whether one holds safek d'oraisa lechumra is d'oraisa or d'rabanan. The PC says that is the whole story. The CS says no, even when there's no serious concern Chazal decreed that one needs re'iyah, which RMF says means yedi'ah berurah, anan sahadi. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Thu Jan 25 13:08:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> On 25/01/18 14:54, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:33pm EST, Zev Sero wrote: > : AIUI the Radbaz/Pri Chadash position is that there never was any > : gezera, but only a caution that since there is a serious concern > : about treife milk, therefore milk needs supervision. Therefore > : where no such concern exists, no supervision is needed. > > : The Chasam Sofer says no, even where there is no serious concern > : Chazal made a gezera, and as RMF points out *only* where there is no > : serious concern did Chazal make a gezera, because where there is a > : serious concern no gezera was necessary. > How do the two differ lemaaseh? If you don't know the milk is > unadulterated, it's possibly treif, whether the concern is "serious" > or not. Your explanation doesn't help me understand what additional > case the CS-posited gezeira was crafted to prohibit. I'm going to have > to ask you to explain further. In Western countries, we know there is no serious concern for treife milk being added to the kosher. Stam milk is cow milk, whether we buy it from a farmer, a corporation, a bodega, or anyone else. Therefore the Radbaz holds it's mutar, and the Pri Chadash reported that this was the common practice in many countries. In this view, in our countries the issur on chaleiv nochri is as obsolete as the issur on giluy, which we completely ignore because we don't have snakes slithering around our homes leaving venom in open containers. The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. > : AI further UI, the pre-RMF mekilim in the US were all relying on the > : Radbaz/Pri Chadash... > > I am not sure that's safe to assume. I mean, RMF's sevara seems a > chiddush, but I don't know for sure it's /his/ chiddush. After all, > I am unaware of anyone else putting anything in writing. He doesn't cite any source for it, and it's not intuitive. Certainly his later chiddush that the issur is only chal when the milk transfers to Jewish ownership, which pretty much obviates the need for relying on the fear of government inspection, is his own. (This is a point almost everyone misses. Once we say the issur isn't chal until you buy the milk, and we only need yediah berurah about the last nochri who owned it, then when we buy a sealed carton of milk from the supermarket we know with absolute certainty, as if we were personally witnesses, that the supermarket owner did not tamper with the carton, and RMF says we *don't care* what happened earlier, at the farm and the plant. There's no serious concern, and Chazal were not gozer. Only if we buy from the farmer do we need yediah berurah that he didn't add anything, and only if we buy from the plant do we need yediah berurah that *they* didn't add anything.) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Jan 25 13:30:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> References: <7c82def7-18d8-103e-b587-8fce454aba2a@sero.name> <20180125195451.GA28348@aishdas.org> <435b2e00-9765-6d9c-f30d-28bf90fb7584@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180125213041.GB28961@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our : circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The : Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any such : decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're driving at. Once you say that the gezeira is only about requiring knowledge that it's not a mixture, the gezeira existing or not existing doesn't change which milk you can drink. Knowledge that it's not a mixture is required for simple basar bechalav. IOW, what's the lemaaseh difference between someone following RMF and someone following the PC? Speaking of which... Anyone know if it's common among Sepharadim to hold like the Radbaz? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From marty.bluke at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:57 2018 From: marty.bluke at gmail.com (Marty Bluke) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:17:57 -0800 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: R' Teitz wrote: "As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum." There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk (chalav akum) is permitted. R' Gil Student writes ( https://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/halav-yisrael.html): "It is my contention that the dominant custom in America has been, and continues to be, to rely on this strong minority opinion and consume non-Halav Yisrael when there is no question of non-kosher mixtures. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com Thu Jan 25 19:05:16 2018 From: rabbi at itskosherveyosher.com (Rabbi Meir Rabi) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:05:16 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus, trusting the gy, Veg Restaurants Message-ID: Reb Moshe Paskens there is no need to Kasher the margarine factory which normally uses animal fats. He explains that, independently of the needs of Kashrus, there are two factors - A] the govt. regulations and penalties B] the owner will ensure that his workers will clean the machinery, because he wants to protect his business, and therefore the machinery/factory is reliably clean to a standard that satisfies Halacha. This all Halachically correct WITHOUT a Mashgiach present. [the Keilim are not a problem because the ban against using Keilim that are not Kashered is a decree that applies only to Yidden - and requesting a Y to be a Mashgiach, as opposed to Glick's or Manishewitz commissioning the factory to make marg under their label, does not impose the ban of not using Keilim that have not been Kashered] So, even if there is no Mashgiach present, Reb Moshe Paskens the circumstances are Halachically correct to assert that no residual lard or tallow will contaminate the batch of vegetarian marg manufactured in this special run. The workers may not understand the seriousness of Kashrus, indeed they may even mock Kashrus and the weird looking rabbi-mashgiach, but as R Moshe makes clear, it is not the rabbi they fear but the owner and their job security. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Kashrus Halacha is not determined by being able to provide an absolute guarantee. The Q - But how do you absolutely know? - is Halachically false and misleading. However, unfortunately, this is the mantra of modern day Kashrus business, as mentioned earlier. The modern Kashrus mantra is - It may good enough for ????? but it is not good enough for me. Those loyal to HKBH know that this does not makes HKBH happy. This relates precisely to our topic - *non*-certified vegan restaurants. Halacha absolutely insists that there is every reason to trust the integrity of the vegan status of the uncertified vegan restaurant. And in fact, it is reasonably suggested that on the contrary, the provision of a Kashrus supervisor/certificate makes things far worse because the onus is no longer on the owner but on the Rabbis and Mashgichim - and if - as we have often discovered - that is sub-standard, then the workers indeed can and often since they resent the imposition of Kashrus and its heavy-handed, clumsy implementation, look for ways to vent their spite by TRYING to get away with doing the wrong thing. Which of course should set our teeth on edge, because if the Mashgiach catches them once and they know there is no heavy penalty, we can only suspect that there are MANY other times when they have successfully dodged the Mashgiach. Of course those who defend this position respond that this is - THIS IS THE HALACHA, we use Hashgacha Temidis or NichNess VeYoTzeh and if we challenge them they simply point out that they are following Halcha and that our suspicions do not change Halacha. In other words, Halacha is not a system that is supposed to provide guarantees. Those who propose that = there is *nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do so = are [probably with the best intentions] misled and attempting to mislead others or reflecting on the frustrated kitchen staff who resent Kashrus. I am unaware that Reb Moshe was ever challenged about his ruling, no-one wrote to him claiming they have = very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening where workers defy the owner etc. And if they did, Reb Moshe did not recant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Jan 26 10:40:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:17:57PM -0800, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Teitz wrote: :> As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek :> that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that : is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach : nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum. : : There is the opinion of the Pri Chadash and others (albeit a minority : opinion) that when there is no suspicion of non-kosher ingredients, milk : (chalav akum) is permitted... It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. So they do agre it's an absolute issur. And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private email: - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:36:38 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Coercion to give Tzedakah as Opposed to Coercion to Sell Message-ID: It is generally agreed [without Halachic Talmudic proof] that he who forces another to give Tzedakah is the major recipient of the Sechar of this Mitzvah - Gadol HaMeAsseh Yoser Min HoOiseh So when HKBH twisted Pharohs arm and had him in a choke-hold and THAT was why he let the Y free, we have a problem, why is this attributed to Pharoh when in fact it was HKBH who arranged this? However, Halacha does recognise that if one is coerced to sell [for a fair price] the sale is legitimate and binding. Why do we feel differently about Tzedakah than we know the Halacha prescribes about a forced sale? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:51:23 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:51:23 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] What IS the Pesak of the Rema? Cheese Decree - Unravelling the Mystery and Confusion Message-ID: I stated that the Rama Paskens that leftover non-K milk droplets in cheese are not a problem - therefore the Rama Paskens that watching the cheese-making process is enough to make the cheese Kosher notwithstanding that the milk was not supervised and may contain some non-K milk. It is difficult to fathom the response therefore that attempts to counter this position by arguing = No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken that the gezera is because of leftover [non-K]milk. So the protest against my argument repeats what I presented, the Pesak of the Rema - but cannot see how that undermines his own position. The protester continues with a second point = if we saw him use kosher rennet it's OK because the Rama paskens cheese must made from CY This is not correct, the Rama Paskens that after the fact, cheese made with non-ChY is Kosher. [Email #2. -micha] Tosafos AZ 35b DH Cheese may have residual [non-K] milk droplets, says the following = meaning we may not acquire milk from a gy to make cheese but we ARE PERMITTED to buy the CHEESE the gy makes for himself because he certainly is not fool enough to make cheese from anything but milk from animals that will become cheese i.e. Kosher animals. Tosafos add to this = we need not concern ourselves [with the risk] that the milk also contains non-K milk = in other words, there is certainly a possibility, as we mentioned earlier, that the gy has leftover drinking milk to which he DID add some non-K milk and now he uses it to make cheese - but that does not register as a Halachic concern. Accordingly, those who in this discussion argue, that the cheese made with rennet from Neveilah is Assur Min HaTorah, are uninformed. Firstly, there would be no need for a decree. Secondly, even if it was a very small risk and therefore Muttar Min HaTorah but forbidden by Chazal, the Gemara would have shut down all opposition to the decree by offering that reason. And there would be no need to keep it a secret. So, cheese made by the gy is Muttar Min HaTorah. Chazal prohibited it. The motivation was not Halachic but to promote social isolation [even the term Chasnuss intermarriage was an exaggeration designed to frighten and successfully implement the decree - which was driven by far more subtle considerations, that we are a nation that MUST dwell alone] Why is cheese made with rennet from a non-kosher animal Kosher? Because rennet is not a food, it is Pirsha BeAlma - a waste product. In those times cheese was made with the CONTENTS of the calf stomach which is Pirsha - rubbish. Eventually, when a trend emerged to make some cheese with the stomach itself, which is meat and Neveilah or even from a non-K species [the stomach would be dipped for a short interval, into the vat of milk and a little of the rennet would leach out of the glands that are situated within the stomach wall] Chazal found the trigger, the ikky factor, which they knew they could successfully employ to implement their cheese ban - the gys cheese may have been made with non-K MEAT. In truth, the meat has nothing to do with the cheese, it is no more than the sponge in which the rennet is contained and it is the rennet, not the meat that makes the cheese. Therefore, it is a decree from Chazal and is not related to Kashrus. Again we must note the genius, the Siyata Dishmaya that inspired Chazal and that has so successfully guided us through our Galus whereby we retain our identity and are proud Yidden. [Email #3. -micha] There is a contradiction in the Rama - 115:1 Milk which is prohibited as ChAkkum, even if it processed into cheese [and is thereby filtered] remains prohibited 115:2 cheese manufactured by a g under the supervision of a Y, using milk that was not monitored, is Kosher after the fact, but we may not drink that milk. The explanation is that in 1, the milk is ALREADY ChAkkum, in 2 it is not yet ChAkkum because it has not yet become the Ys milk. I think this is the foundation of R Moshe. Take note from 2, the SAME product as milk IS NOT KOSHER, but it IS KOSHER as CHEESE. Best, Meir G. Rabi From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 08:25:14 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I am moving this discussion to Avodah. At 04:14 PM 1/26/2018, Ben Waxman wrote on Areivim: >Why does anyone think that everything must remain? the same?? Are you >absolutely sure that Judaism that you grew up with was the be all and >end all?? I >Don't take this question as an approval of these segulot, that isn't the >point. I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. >In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >requires an apology, second best? We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) After writing the first part of The Kishke Segulah, a dear friend of mine, Rav Hershel Hisiger, R"M in Mesivta of Lakewood, called my attention to a story which succinctly and eloquently articulates, in a nutshell, the point of Part 2 in this series. The story was related by Rav Myer Schwab of Denver about his father, Rav Shimon Schwab zt"l. I subsequently verified the story with Rabbi Schwab, and thank him for his time and input. A great-granddaughter of Rav Shimon Schwab had been to Eretz Yisroel. Upon returning, she visited her grandfather, a red string tied around her wrist. When Rav Schwab saw the string, he asked his granddaughter why she was wearing it. The girl told her grandfather that it was a piece of a red string which had been wound around Kever Rochel seven times and that wearing such a string was supposedly a segulah for a shidduch and other things. When he heard this, Rav Schwab - in his trademark pleasant manner - asked the girl if she thought that perhaps she should not wear it. The granddaughter asked if he thought she should remove it, and he responded in the affirmative. Of course, the girl obliged, and Rav Schwab himself removed the red string from her hand. After removing the string, Rav Schwab explained to his granddaughter why he had felt that it should be removed. "If you wish for something," Rav Schwab explained, "then you should daven for it. That's how a Jew deals with all situations - with tefillah, Torah, and mitzvos. If there is a segulah which is part of our general service to Hashem, then such a segulah may be acceptable. There are no quick-fixes, however. A segulah which is not tefillah and has no component of avodas Hashem in it, but rather is merely a quick-fix, such as wearing a red string, is unacceptable." At first glance, one would think that this is elementary knowledge. After all, who among us does not believe that the Ribbono Shel Olam ultimately runs the world? On a deeper level, however, while we may believe this in the abstract, we sometimes seem to forget this most basic of principles in the subconscious way we act and feel at times. See the above URL for more. Part I is at http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yated/kishke_segula_1.html Based on this I think that one can conclude that certainly according to Rav Schwab, segulos are not a part of normative Yahadus. This is my point. To add new things that are incompatible with Yahadus is simply not correct. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 09:52:36 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:52:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. > (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) It is very easy to accept changes made hundreds of years ago as Rav Doctor Haym Soloveitchik noted in his famous footnote in Rupture and Reconstruction. I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > I agree that everything does not have to remain the same. For example, there was a time when only one person at a time said Kaddish. Today in most shuls a number of people say Kaddish at the same time. This was instituted to prevent fights over who should say each Kaddish. I am fine with this provided that that the people saying Kaddish say it together. However, when the saying of Kaddish becomes a Bilbul with each person at a different place, then I do not believe that anyone has fulfilled his obligation to say Kaddish. If Rabbi Schwab didn't like segulot, that is fine. However, other rabbis and communities did. We can talk about whether or not segulot are halachic, if they're effective, if their based on ideas in the Gemara, a whole slew of subjects. None of that means that one rav, as important as he may have been, gets to decide what is normative Judaism, especially when said rav was a leader in one community only. Central European Upper Middle Class Jews don't get that privilege. Ben From zev at sero.name Sun Jan 28 10:54:43 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <902b0bc3-0d27-d917-f22a-e70fd9778628@sero.name> On 28/01/18 11:25, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> In addition, why would anyone think that his or her Yahadut is the >> standard (normative) Yahadut? Everything else is somehow strange, >> requires an apology, second best? > We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of > Yahadus. Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. And immediately you provide another example of exactly the point RBW was making. Since when was R Schwab the posek of all Judaism; why is his opinion more authoritative than that of, say, the Rimanover who originated the segulah we were originally discussing? How can you cite him in order to rule anyone with a different opinion out of Judaism? This narrow doctrine you are preaching seems not to be Judaism but Puritanism. [Email #2. -micha] On 28/01/18 12:52, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 1/28/2018 6:25 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: >> We are talking about segulos and if they are a normative part of >> Yahadus.?? Here is what Rav Shimon Schwab had to say about segulos. >> (From https://goo.gl/fZVeKm The Kishke segulah Part II) > I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. However, > if other chose to change, az mah?? This claim of "this isn't the Judaism > that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. It's not just those who choose to change that RYL has a problem with; it's also those whose *are* holding on to their minhagim, which happen to be different from those he grew up with. He seems to expect them to abandon their minhagim and choose his. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 11:17:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:17:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> On 1/28/2018 8:14 PM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim. People consult with their rabbis about their choices and questions (or not). The Yekke community in New York doesn't have a monopoly on rabbanim. Frankly, I don't understand the question. Ben From micha at aishdas.org Sun Jan 28 12:10:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: : The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the : Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these things. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From larry62341 at optonline.net Sun Jan 28 10:14:07 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should or should not do"? Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you pick and choose what you will have? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 12:21:06 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > The Chasam Sofer says that on the contrary, davka in our > circumstances Chazal decreed an issur on chaleiv nochri. The > Radbaz/Pri Chodosh says this is a myth; there never was any > such decree. RMF emphatically holds like the CS. and R' Micha Berger responded: > Yes, but what's the nafqa mina? I STILL don't get what you're > driving at. Given that I have not learned any of these sources inside, perhaps I should stay out of the discussion. But I would like to give a case which might help illuminate the issues: eggs. As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is impossible to determine simply by looking at it. And yet, I never hear of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs are from a kosher bird. I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the kashrus problems had risen to a certain level, and tamei eggs were simply never sold on a level to warrant that gezera. If so, perhaps there are poskim who rule that "USDA milk is in the egg category". Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:07:00 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tu B'Shevat, Order Of Brachos Message-ID: <1517242019633.79609@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. This Wednesday is Tu B'Shevat. There is a custom on Tu B'Shevat to eat fruits, especially those from the seven species with which Eretz Yisroel was blessed. Can you please review the order of the brachos? A. If one has an assortment of fruit in front of them, one should say the bracha of Borei Pri Ha'eitz on the most important fruit, and the bracha will exempt the rest of the fruit that one will eat. Fruit from the seven species are considered more important than other fruit. Among the seven species olives are considered the most important, followed by dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates. If one has a whole fruit and a sliced fruit of the same species, one should recite the bracha on the whole fruit, but a sliced olive would come first before any other species even if it is a whole fruit. If one does not have any fruit of the seven species, one should recite the bracha on the fruit that they usually prefer. If one does not have any preference, one should say the bracha on a whole fruit, if one is available. Therefore, the order of the brachos is as follows: * Olives, dates, grapes, figs and then pomegranates * The fruit that one usually prefers * If one has a whole fruit, this comes before a pitted or sliced fruit of the same species. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Jan 29 08:40:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) Message-ID: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> At 03:10 PM 1/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:22PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote: >: The MO, the DL, the Chardal, the Litvak, the Sefardi, and the >: Chassidic communities all have great rabbanim... >Although the classic Litvish attitude to segulos would have been >to invoke "tamim tihyeh im E-lokekha". However, the yeshiva velt >has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these >things. You are correct. See, they were correct when they warned against becoming assimilated if one left Europe for America. >:-} [Email #2. -micha] The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota that is at https://goo.gl/1ZdeXD My biggest concerns with segulos as of late are: * They are the basis for developing a lack of emunah. * They can get in the way of the performance of mitzvos. * They have the potential of cheapening Yiddishkeit. * They have the potential of minimizing our cognizance of the prescribed method for getting what we need or want - tefillah! Our mesorah for getting what we want is tefillah, because through tefillah we develop a relationship with Hashem. Unfortunately, we lose that opportunity with segulos. As was said before, the greatest risk we have with segulos is the potential confusion our children can experience. I think that we can help our children by sharing, at their level, the point made by the Ran about how segulos work. He compares segulos to medicine. He speaks about one difference between the two and one similarity they have. The Ran says that medicine works on a physical level, while segulos works on a meta-physical level. That is how they differ. They are alike in that just as there are no guarantees that medicine will work for all patients, so too with segulos. There are no guarantees that segulos will work. See the above URL for more. YL From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Jan 28 18:57:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:57:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <56e6d29e-1119-82f9-93c7-99c195d4bac8@zahav.net.il> <20180128201004.GD13885@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8b168328-3949-4ed4-e649-aadd7d700295@zahav.net.il> Global village or many cases a real village where chassidim and litvaks live in the same apartment building. From my few trips to the US it seems that the Americans have kept their Ashkenazi minhagim better than their Israeli counterparts but they aren't immune. Ben On 1/28/2018 10:10 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > However, the yeshiva velt > has assimilated much of the chassidishe attitude toward these > things. From zev at sero.name Mon Jan 29 11:22:50 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 14:22:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <6B.66.03148.A69FD6A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <443019bb-1929-82a4-923f-fd4192d65b7f@zahav.net.il> <3A.33.03752.0F21E6A5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <5a102ee1-9adb-e044-3981-caf0b9f61ad6@sero.name> On 28/01/18 13:14, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > At 12:52 PM 1/28/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >> I understand and respect people who hold on to their minhagim. >> However, if other chose to change, az mah? This claim of "this >> isn't the Judaism that I grew up with" is true but irrelevant. No >> one decides for someone else what they should or should or shouldn't >> be doing. The Yahadut that I teach my daughter isn't what you teach >> your kids and if you were to tell me "well that isn't what I grew up >> with" I'd answer "You're absolutely right". > > Don't rabbonim who paskin shailos decide for others "what they should > or should not do"? They pasken only what the person asking should do; they do not presume to dictate what every other Jew must do. > Is Yahadus in your opinion something like a Chinese menu in which you > pick and choose what you will have? Actually Yahadus *is* often rather like a Chinese menu in that although there are many options available, you are constrained in which choices you may make; you can only have one item from each column. All the other items on the menu are just as valid; they're just not available to you. But in the matter of minhagim, generally Yahadus is not like a Chinese menu but like a normal a la carte menu, where you can choose whatever you like. Social conventions may suggest that you stick to one selection from any category, and that you not mix options that appear to clash with each other, but you have every right to defy convention if you like, and your choices will be just as valid as anyone else's. What is *not* Yahadus at all is pretending that only one corner of the menu is valid, and the rest of the menu doesn't exist. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:45:29 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> References: <20180126184018.GB19332@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > > It is the opinion of the Radbaz and Peri Chasah that chalav aku"m means > milk that might have non-kosher adulteration. A standard application of > safeiq deOraisa lechumera, simply that the case is milk of iffy provenance. > So they do agre it's an absolute issur. > > And I am guessing -- although I asked the chevrah to check -- that the > Radbaz's opinion is more common among Sepharadim than the Chasam Sofer's. > Even among Ashkenazim, I don't think it's a clear minority. > > That guess has two aspects, as someone pointed out to me in private > email: > - textual: what do most Seph acharonim pasqen? > - mimetic: what do most Seph kehillot do in practice? > I (the "someone" in the previous paragraph -- al tikra "someone" ela "Simon") found a couple of sources that address both of these aspects: Unfortunately they contradict each other, or more precisely are coming from different places, both geographically and historically Birkei Yosef by the Hida, YD 115 -- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/ pdfpager.aspx?req=7670&st=&pgnum=36 at the end of subsection 1, says that one should be mahmir anywhere where there isn't a clear universal minhag lehakel, and says "this is common practice (pash'ta hahoraa) in all areas of Turkey and Eretz HaTzvi (i.e. throughout the Eastern Mediterranean/Ottoman Empire) Mayyim Hayyim by R. Yossef Messas vol 2, OH 92 (I don't have online access to this source, but I believe it's on Bar Ilan) permits because: camels are not found in the cities of the Maghreb, only among the Arabs in the deserts; camel's milk today is many times more expensive than kosher milk; asses' milk and horse milk is also not found today even for medical use, and anyway is easy to distinguish because it has a different color, smell and taste which are perceptible even when mixed with kosher milk. Furthermore, he adds, today the government enforces regulation and fines people even for diluting milk with water, kal vahomer for mixing it with less healthy kinds of milk. Two points that are worth noting here: The questioner already notes that nobody in Morocco avoids milk milked without Jewish supervision, even in Haredi circles; he is asking for a source for the heter, rather than a psak RYM completely takes for granted the approach of the Radbaz/Peri Hadash, and only concerns himself with establishing the metziut. And another general point: I don't understand why everybody calls this the shita of the Radbaz and/or the Peri Hadash as if it originated among the aharonim. Both RHYDA and RYM quote it from the Tashbetz, who is a rishon, about 100 years before gerush Sefarad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:18:27 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: <<<>>> My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov? Using the logic presented here, I would argue that Shehechaynu is a hefsek between Hagafen and drinking the wine, and that it would be better to say the Shehecheyanu BEFORE Kiddush, because, after all, it is being said on the day, and not on the kiddush. If kiddush can be used as a precedent for fruit, then it would be best to say the Shehecheyanu after Haetz, because eating is when the major hanaah occurs. What difference is there between the two? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 09:52:02 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 09:18:27AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Today's Halacha Yomis from the OU says: ... :> Mishna Berura (225:11) writes that ... :> alternatively, one can recite *Ha'eitz*, take a :> bite and then after swallowing the first bite recite *Shehechiyanu*. :> However it is best not to say *Shehechiyanu* immediately after *Ha'eitz*, :> as this would cause a *hefsek* (break) between the recitation of the :> *bracha* on the fruit and eating the fruit. I don't know why not use a much simpler workaround, but since the MB didn't suggest it, I assume there is a problem. Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu fruit, and only make a sheha : My question: Why is this different than the Shehecheyanu on YomTov?... AhS OC 225:1: shehechiyanu on YT (including Chanukah or Purim) is chiyuv, on a fruit or anything else that that is not tied to a calendar date is reshus. Se'if 6 says that the iqar shehechiyanu for a fruit is for re'iyah, seeing that the new season has fruit, and we are only nohagim to wait for akhilah. And *I assume* it's the fact that the whole shehechiyanu is reshus that allows us to delay it until eating. But both would argue that of the two, it would would be *easier* to deem the shehechiyanu on the fruit less necessarily part of eating a fruit, and thus more naturally considered a hefseiq. He doesn't mention the question. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Jan 30 11:07:12 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:07:12 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Segulos (was Parashas Ha'mon - A Segulah for Paranassah!) In-Reply-To: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> References: <1517244021631.46536@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <94dedb85-8d12-133e-bede-c749e82b5b1d@zahav.net.il> The points he raised were fine but that doesn't mean that people who use segulot are practicing "non-normative Judaism". We can debate the wisdom of segulot all we want. I can probably come up with a long list of practices that I don't like and find plenty of rabbis that agree with me (if I can phrase it that way). That doesn't mean that anyway who keeps said practices is deviating from norm. Ben On 1/29/2018 6:40 PM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > The following is an excerpt from an article > by Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg Dean, Torah Academy, Minneapolis, Minnesota > that is athttps://goo.gl/1ZdeXD From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 11:54:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit about Hashem Message-ID: <20180130195425.GA7077@aishdas.org> I'm copying this post by RGR (CC-ed) from Torah Musings. Because there aren't too many topics more important to talk about. Actually, the only such topic I can think of is: So, what is it He made me to do? As it has more nafqa mina lemaaseh. But, one doesn't get to step 2 without this step 1, anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha Torah Musings Posted by: Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Ramban Shemot Jan 30, 18 Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem Parshat Yitro records the events of Matan Torah, the Giving of the Torah, including the Aseret HaDibberot (which should properly be known as the Ten Sayings, Pronouncements, Utterances or some such, since dibberot does not mean commandments). For all that I usually try to spread my choice of comments throughout the parsha, I got caught up in the first few Dibberot, since they expand our understanding of Ramban's view of faith and its role in our Judaism, a topic I find both endlessly fascinating and of particular importance in this generation, when even highly observant Jews are unaware of some of these commandments [but my letting it take up all the room this time means I will strive in coming weeks and months to look away from such issues]. What Obligates Us to Serve Hashem The Dibberot open (20;2-3) with Hashem reminding the Jewish people that He took them out of Egypt, freed them from slavery. Ramban argues that that was to remind the Jews they owed Him their service, since Hashem freed them from the yoke of their previous master, Par'oh. He cites a Mechilta as support, although it's slightly different in a way I find revealing. Mechilta says "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" preceded the prohibition of other gods because there's no point in a king making laws until a nation has accepted that monarch's rule. Hashem therefore first reminds the people, "didn't you accept My kingship in Egypt [I think this means that was how they merited leaving, by offering the Pesach sacrifice]? Once they agreed, talk could move on to the wrong in worship of other powers. The minimal reading of Mechilta is that it explains Anochi's being the first words and that the Dibberot start with Egypt as a way to remind the Jews they had already rendered obeisance to Hashem. Ramban (knowingly, I assume) took it a step further, that the verse is telling us that what Hashem did for the Jews in Egypt obligates them (and us) throughout history. I like Ramban's explanation better (he cites the Mechilta as if it meant what he said, but as I've pointed out, he seems to add an element), because it explains why Hashem opened with Egypt rather than Creation--the fact that Hashem made the world, set up the laws of physics, itself means we'd have to do what Hashem says. Mechilta might say our acceptance means that even within the parameters of freewill we've agreed to be Hashem's people, but I still would have thought Creation was enough for Hashem to tell us what we have to do to do well in His world. Ramban's point, I think, is that Hashem was showing why they (and we) should feel a personal moral debt to Hashem, stemming from a kindness that applies to each of us throughout history. Sure, if we did not follow the Torah, natural consequences would bedevil us (as we saw last time); but Hashem wants us to realize we should feel obligated to serve, not just submit to His force majeure. As part of that, Ramban notes that these Dibberot are phrased in the singular, addressed to each individual Jew, male or female, because each of us should undertake mitzvot as a matter of the personal relationship initiated by the One Who took each of us out of Egypt. The Definition of Idolatry The Dibberot say lo yihyeh lecha elohim acherim, you must not "have" another god. Ramban says "having" a god means to subscribe to, to believe in, to accept any power as independently powerful in one's life. That's how to read Ya'akov's words in Bereshit 28;21, when he said that should he return safely from Lavan's house, Hashem would be his Gd, that he (and we, by virtue of this dibbur) would not turn to any elim, angels or heavenly bodies. That includes not believing in them, not accepting them as a power, not saying to any one of them "you are my Power." Ramban offers a good opportunity to remember that avodah zarah, worshipping other gods, is not always about conscious worship or religious activity. The definition ofavodah zarah (and why `idolatry' is such an unfortunate translation) includes the case of a Jew who comes to believe that some other force or being has independent power over his/her life. This stress matters particularly in the context of Ramban, who himself believes that Hashem in some way delegates some running of the world to other forces (as we've seen previously). It's precisely because he does ascribe some power to those forces that his expansive view of the prohibition brings us up short--however Hashem works them, we may not acknowledge them as any kind of meaningful power, because they are not in any way independent of Hashem. [To me, this should affect how we speak. When we say that gravity means we'll fall to the ground if we step off a ledge, it can start us down the path of thinking that natural events must occur. We have to always remember that what we mean by gravity and all other regularities of the world is that Hashem made this the way the world operates in general, even almost universally, and that we are supposed to expect those regularities to continue in just about all cases. But we also must remember that any of that can go differently at any time. A Jew who, Gd forbid, falls off a tall tower, mountain, or into a gorge, is almost definitely going to die; but on the way down, that Jew ideally would realize that the issue isn't gravity, it's whether s/he will merit Hashem's interrupting the regular workings of the world to save him/her]. It can be a delicate semantic point, but an important one. Avodah zarah means much more than bowing to idols or rain dances to spirits. Hashem is Strict and Jealous in a Narrower Band Than We Think The verse specifies bowing to or worshipping other powers, then adds that a reason to stay away from that is that Hashem is a E-l kana, a jealous (or zealous) Gd, visits the sins of the fathers on second, third, and fourth generations. Conversely, Hashem does kindnesses for thousands, for those who love Hashem and fulfill His mitzvot. The simplest reading of this verse seems to me to be that Hashem generally punishes and rewards far into the future. Stay away from wrongful worships, we are being warned, since that will hurt our coming generations, as do all our sins, but this is a particularly serious one. (That's clearly only for those descendants that continue that path. Ramban adds that it stops at ribe'im, a fourth generation, because there's no meaningful connection beyond that. He implies that it was that connection that is why Hashem punishes that far down- since the great-grandfather's evil mattered to this current sinner, the ancestor's sin still is part of the problem. Beyond that, there's too little impact of the earlier sinner to consider it relevant to this one). Ramban reads the verse interestingly more restrictively. He says it's only for this one terrible transgression that Hashem visits the sins of the forefathers on those of their descendants who follow their ways; in all other matters, each person is punished for his/her own sins (so that if a great-grandfather starts eating pork, and the family continues that practice, knowing it violates the Torah, they would still only be punished for their own sins). How Easy It Is To Be Considered One Who Loves Hashem Perhaps Ramban's way is more intuitive than I've suggested, since he limits the areas where we might bear the burden of forebears we could not control (for all that a later generation sins, s/he would likely be upset to know that s/he is being punished more than a friend who commits that exact same sin, just because s/he was stuck with a grandparent who did the same). But then he applies his focus on how we relate to powers other than Hashem to the next verse as well, in a way that I think is surprisingly lenient: for him, to qualify as ohavai, as those who love Hashem, ordinary mitzvot are not the issue. Rather, one must be moser nefesh for Hashem, insist that Hashem is the only Power that runs the world, and deny/reject all other powers. More than just insisting, the person would have to do that at risk of death, in line with a traditional reading of the verse in Shema, that to love Hashem with all our souls means even were we required to forfeit those souls. It's possible Ramban thinks we do not become ohavei Hashem unless and until we're faced with that significant challenge, but that would make the verse a bit of a tease--remember that Hashem rewards those who serve Him well, since He continues to perform kindnesses for generations of descendants of those who give their lives to avoid accepting some other god. I prefer to think he means that if we cultivate that strong a sense of connection, if we build our insistence that no other power than Hashem runs any part of the world, such that we would firmly intend to assert even at the cost of our lives, that we can qualify as ohavei Hashem. Because if that's true, the entry fee to the club is lower than we thought. To reach that august level that Hashem calls us ohavav, we could have imagined that we would need to excel at all or most of the multiplicity of ways Hashem demands we serve--all the intricacies of the many areas of halachah as well as of character and belief. For Ramban, all it takes is inculcating in ourselves the basic truth that our forefather Avraham taught us: there is one Gd, Who runs the whole world, is the only Power to Whom we need to (or may) relate in building our most successful human lives. Parents as Representatives of Hashem Kiddushin 30b notes that Scripture refers to the kavod of parents, the acts of filial piety we owe them, in similar terms to that which we owe Hashem. Ramban uses that to explain why verse twelve, that command, is the first dibbur following the ones about Hashem and not serving other powers. For their children, parents are to be treated as creators, Hashem's partners. He then takes it a remarkable step further; while the Talmud lays out the basic requirement as being to perform certain acts of service [providing food and drink, helping them dress, helping them get around], Ramban suggests it's the same kavod we owe Hashem. That means, first, that we admit this person is our parent, and that we serve this person for no other reason than the bare fact of being our parent. Much as we are supposed to serve Hashem without thought of reward, and just because Hashem is Hashem, Ramban thinks we must not serve our parents for the sake of an anticipated inheritance or for any other ulterior motive. He doesn't mean that to the exclusion of what the Gemara said, he says, he means that that needs to be our underlying attitude in all we do for these parents. So that as we do what the Gemara said--help those parents when they need it, and more--the kavod is that we do it as recognition that this person is our creator, a partner with Hashem and therefore deserving of something of the service we owe Hashem. There's more to the Aseret HaDibberot than telling us how to Hashem, but that's already a significant part of those Dibberot for Ramban, since at least four of the ten turn on that question, how and where we should see Hashem in our lives, and what it will do for us when we do. 2018-01-30 About Gidon Rothstein ... Copyright 2018 All rights reserved From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:19:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait for ha'eitz. : But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first : place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv : comes first? Yes, that fits with what I cited from the AhS. Thanks for spelling it out, I didn't catch it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The purely righteous do not complain about evil, micha at aishdas.org but add justice, don't complain about heresy, http://www.aishdas.org but add faith, don't complain about ignorance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but add wisdom. - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:00:17 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they > have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, > why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu > fruit, and only make a sheha actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Tue Jan 30 12:22:33 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 30/01/18 15:19, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:00:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: > : actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple > : answer is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at > : that moment, or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > > The reisha yes (doesn't presume you have). The seifa -- the whole > point was to be yotzei ha'eitz with something that does not call > for a shehechiyanu. My assumption was you DID already eat the season's > grapes. Therefore, one can get ha'eitz out of the way without making > the berakhah wait for shehechianu AND shehechianu doesn't have to wait > for ha'eitz. Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Jan 30 12:43:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> <20180130201932.GB8123@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180130204357.GA25552@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote: : Yes, but *why* do you assume that the person has eaten grapes? Grapes come into season in late summer or early fall -- unsurprisingly in time for Chag haAsif. So by now, most of us on Avodah have had this year's grapes. My statement wasn't hypothetical. I was offering pragmatic advice on how avoid the problem. Not an assumption, but a recommendation. By using one of the 7 minim that is ha'eitz that you did happen to eat already, you do avoid needing to make both berakhos on the same new fruit. And there is no problem with choosing one of the 7 minim first. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, micha at aishdas.org if only because it offers us the opportunity of http://www.aishdas.org self-fulfilling prophecy. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Arthur C. Clarke From akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com Tue Jan 30 12:27:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at mail.gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> References: <20180130175200.GI8711@aishdas.org> <51c9eeb9-b079-e8b7-4da9-c718a4b2a315@sero.name> Message-ID: On Jan 30, 2018 3:00 PM, "Zev Sero" wrote: > On 30/01/18 12:52, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> Grapes are ha'eitz, and because they're at the first of the 7 minim they >> have priority over any other fruit you might be making ha'eitz on. So, >> why not make ha'eitz on some grapes, having in mind the shehechiyanu >> fruit, and only make a shehechiyanu... > actually olives & dates have priority over grapes. But the simple answer > is that the MB doesn't presume either that you have grapes at that moment, > or that you have already eaten grapes that season. > But I don't get why we need this whole alternative in the first place. > What's wrong with saying Shehecheyanu first, since the chiyuv comes first? The "problem" with saying Shehecheyanu first (and I put it in quotes, because one could argue that it is more of a perception than a reality) is that we are accustomed to bundle brachos together, davka to demonstrate that it is NOT a hefsek. Examples: She'asa Nisim after Ner Chanuka. Achilas Matza after Hamotzi. Lots of things after Hagafen. In most or all such cases, little or nothing would be lost if the brachos were rearranged to be less of a hefsek. But we don't. Except here. And that surprises me. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 18:13:56 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:13:56 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: . R' Zev Sero wrote: > But we're *not* putting Shehecheyanu first to avoid a hefsek, > we're putting it first because that's where it belongs. You're not answering my question; you're merely restating it. You say that in this particular case, the Shehecheyanu "belongs" in the first position. I want to know why this situation is different. Why does the Shehecheyanu belong first by fruit, but it belongs in the middle in every other case? Someone wrote me offlist: > The shehechiyanu on fruit is for seeing them. We have some > weird minhag not to make it until eating. Which is okay, > because it's a reshus, not a chovah, anyway. > But, it also means there is no hefseiq after the shehechianu, > as you saw the fruit already. Not really such a "weird minhag". Mechaber 225:3 seems to consider it the *standard* minhag. And Mishna Brurah 225:11 explains how that came about: "Because if someone's heart doesn't rejoice at seeing it (the new fruit), but only when he eats it, then l'kulei alma he should say the bracha only upon eating it. So that became the minhag always, because of Lo Plug." Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:26 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:25:26 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] Message-ID: The Gemara explains that it is possible to identify non-K species milk [as opposed to milk from a Tereifah cow] as it has a different hue of white. However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - is it not Min BeMino? Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Jan 31 06:29:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam Message-ID: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Some have the custom to eat esrog jam on Tu B'Shevat. If one has not eaten esrog the whole year, does one make a Shehechiyanu on esrog jam? A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season. The esrog grows on the tree all year long. Since it does not have a set season, one cannot say Shehechiyanu. Some poskim disagree with the reasoning of the Mishna Berura. However, for another reason they too conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit. However, since most people experience more joy when they eat from the new fruit, the custom has evolved to delay reciting the bracha until we eat the fruit. However in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos. It is therefore not appropriate to recite the bracha again upon eating the esrog on Tu B'Shevat. Additionally, the Aishel Avrohom questions if one may recite Shehechiyanu on jam, since the pieces of fruit are not noticeable. The K'sav Sofer writes that to avoid all questions, it is best to recite Shehechiyanu on a different "new" fruit before partaking of the esrog jam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Jan 31 08:08:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 02:29:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> A. The Mishna Berura (225:16) writes that one does not recite :> Shehechiyanu on an esrog, since the fruit does not have a season... :> [F]or another reason they too :> conclude that one should not say Shehechiyanu. As was alluded to in :> a previous Halacha Yomis, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was instituted :> primarily to be said when seeing a new fruit... :> in this case, the bracha of Shehechiyanu was already recited on the :> esrog when we shook it with the lulav on Sukkos... I think esrog jam is not necessarily a good idea for more balebatishe reasons. Today's esrog grown for the mitzvah has a LOT of pesticides on it. The local maqolet has "buddah's hand" citrons, the same species as an esrog, but with several smaller migdalot so that it looks like someone's hands with their fingers bunched up pointing upward (if you have enough imagination). Wikipedia . According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the mitzvah on Sukkos?) Next, no one would be eating these things, or many of the other fruit in the stor,e, if it weren't for Tu biShvat. We've gone quite a ways from the grower excited about the new crops growing on his nachalah. We're now using weird fruit that we didn't miss from the last time they were in season. Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify making shehechiyanu at all, now that it's not about the excitement of something new? Maybe only people who like the chance to experiment with new taste who should make them? And if you are trying a new front for the shehechiyanu, shouldn't both the berakhah and the shehechiyanu wait until after the first taste, so you know you like it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From zev at sero.name Wed Jan 31 11:56:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehechiyanu on esrog jam In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <04bdc4b7-dc31-f9a7-4f34-743210bbf0d1@sero.name> On 31/01/18 11:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to the MB, one can't use them either. But according to other > shitos... It is covered by esrog? (Can you use a fingered citron for the > mitzvah on Sukkos?) AIUI, yes, these are kosher esrogim, because this is their natural form, so they have the din of "Esrog Hakushi", which if it grows on a normal tree is possul, but if it grows on a tree which naturally produces such esrogim it's kosher. According to R Ari Zivitofski this is the psak received by the Jews who settled on the Malabar Coast in the late 15th century and found these esrogim growing there. > Nowadays, many fruit down't even seem seasonal. > Apples just cost a little more part for the year. How do we justify > making shehechiyanu at all, Indeed, if one can't tell whether it's from the new season one cannot say shehecheyanu. This is why we don't say it for potatoes, carrots, etc., which are commonly stored in root cellars and available all year. The same is nowadays true for apples and oranges. With other summer fruit there are still noticeable seasons, since in the winter the price goes up dramatically, so high that most people don't buy them. This is the equivalent of a situation the poskim discuss, that rich people preserve a fruit but poor people don't, and the psak is that the rich people are batla da'tam and one says shehecheyanu when the new season's fruit comes in. If the price of Chilean fruit in winter comes down to the point that everyone thinks nothing of buying them, then indeed the shehecheyanu for those species will disappear. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 17:42:38 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than Creation. But if we view the Aseres Hadibros as speaking to Israel - and especially if we view those ten as categories for the 613 - then it makes sense for the first one to be explaining that, "I did for you, and this is your side of the agreement." Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il Thu Feb 1 02:06:16 2018 From: ari.zivotofsky at biu.ac.il (Ari Z. Zivotofsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:06:16 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Finger esrogim In-Reply-To: <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> References: <1517408959443.61885@stevens.edu> <20180131160806.GA15090@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5A72E698.7050605@biu.ac.il> Attached are some sources that I have assembled. [See -micha] And a nice picture of Rav Machpud examining a finger esrog: [ -micha] From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 11:06:42 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Let's Talk a Bit About Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180201190642.GA1686@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:42:38PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article from R' Gidon Rothstein. He didn't phrase it quite this : blatantly, but I sense a suggestion that Creation *doesn't* obligate us to : obey Hashem, and that bothers me. So I'd like to propose an idea, and y'all : can weigh in on whether it is compatible with RDR and his sources. The post was based on the Ramban. We would have to distinguish between what the Ramban said by any interpreation, and what is specifically RGS's. "Experimentally", it seems the Creation could obligate the 7 Mitzvos. After all, that's the duty of humanity. Jews have a duty beyond that. What obligates that? : As I see it, the Law of Lo Tignov is just as obligatory as the Law of : Gravity; it's just that the effects of one are more immediate and obvious : than the other. Phrased differently, we are all obligated to obey these : laws, and this obligation exists even if we don't accept it, and even if we : don't even recognize it. These laws apply to all of G-d's creations. I don't know what you mean by the Law of Gravity being "obligatory". Natural law is in the realm of "Is", halakhah and morality are in the realm of "Ought". Gravity is a pattern about how things behave. There is a tendency to reify (make a reality out of something abstract) that pattern into a law they must obey, it's not an "obligation". It's something they /do/ obey. But since we're talking about the Ramban, maybe we shouldn't jump to that reification so quickly. Doesn't he hold that "natural law" is just a term for patterns in His Action, hiding what is really just as miraculous as things we identify as "miracles"? I might suggest that that there is a natural and/or metaphysical law behind Lo Signov, but it wouldn't be "Thou Shalt Not Steal" (really: Kidnap, but we'll ignore that for this discussion). Rather, it would be that bad things happen when you steal. Therefore Hashem warns us away from it for our own good. A notion of halakhah as Doctor's Orders more than General's Orders. Otherwise, as I said, I fail to understand your meaning. : But there is another group of laws, those given to Bnei Yisrael. These are : the ones that we accepted at Yetzias Mitzrayim. Which could also be Doctor's Orders. Just as a piano mover can only do his job if he obeys more health rules than necessary for most lines of work. : The outside world views the Ten Commandments as universal, and maybe that's : why we are surprised to the first one talking about the Exodus rather than : Creation... Rihal has the Chaver give the Kuzari king an entirely different kind of answer. Hashem opens with "asher hotzeisikha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim" not because that's the reason for observance, but because those are the grounds for our knowing He Exists. He then invited a Jewish Rabbi, and asked him about his belief. 11. The Rabbi replied: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles; who fed them in the desert and gave them the land, after having made them traverse the sea and the Jordan in a miraculous way; who sent Moses with His law, and subsequently thousands of prophets, who confirmed His law by promises to the observant, and threats to the disobedient. Our belief is comprised in the Torah -- a very large domain. 12. I had not intended to ask any Jew, because I am aware of their reduced condition and narrow-minded views, as their misery left them nothing commendable. Now shouldst thou, O Jew, not have said that thou believest in the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide, and in Him who created and keeps thee, and such attributes which serve as evidence for every believer, and for the sake of which He pursues justice in order to resemble the Creator in His wisdom and justice? 13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved. 14. Al Khazari: That which thou sayest now, O Jew, seems to be more to the point than the beginning, and I should like to hear more. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too micha at aishdas.org once you get to know them. http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Feb 1 11:14:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 19:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More Common Kiddush Questions: Kiddush B'Makom Seudah Message-ID: <1517512472723.23328@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/q7pcDE Have you ever wondered why after partaking of Kiddush in shul, many people nonetheless make Kiddush again at the onset of their Shabbos Day Seudah? If one already fulfilled their Kiddush obligation in shul, what could the requirement possibly be for another at home? How many times must Kiddush be recited? Additionally, if people generally make Kiddush on Mezonos on Shabbos Day, why don't we do that on Friday night as well? Interestingly, the answers to all of these questions are intertwined. But to gain a proper understanding of the relevant issues, some background is order. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 1 13:47:19 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] In the #MeToo era, these synagogues are banning Shlomo Carlebach songs In-Reply-To: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> References: <1517414899619.64406@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180201214719.GB24270@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 04:08:26PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Areivim wrote: : Please see : https://goo.gl/TFxdHR : : What other music should be banned, because the composer did not live a : "sterling" life. Perhaps Strauss. From : https://goo.gl/4GYgpY For clarity, let's take it to an extreme: How many of us listen to Wagner y"sh? And would you bring his frankly Araynist music -- with the lauding of Teutonic pagan mythos -- into shul davening? So the question may not be if, but how much? Do we chase down info that may pasl a source, or only deal with accusations most people know of? This is related to the theoretical question of motive: Are we talking about the music we listen to, or about the music we pray with? Cantor Sherwood Goffin's guidelines for tunes for davening are: 1- Don't abandon "miSinai" tunes. There is value to a melody simply because we know that if a contemporary of the Maharam miRutenburg would walk in, they could still join in. The beauty of continuity. 2- In other contexts, select a tune that matches the three M-s: Mood - fit the tone of the words. In my experience, the most common violation is a chazan choosing to sing Keil Adon to depressing or plaintive music, rather than something more regal. Mode - this is a music term, describing the type of scale and the chords and note progressions it enables. Wikipeda lists some of the major modes of Ashkenazi nusach (and Klezmir, which borrows them) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prayer_modes (The entry name shows Ashkocentism.) The melody's mode often makes one mood or another easier to express. Like the the way the minor scale makes it easier to express pathos than in a major scale. Min haQodesh - the music should have a holy source, it should have been written for tefillah, for a kumzitz or otherwise inspire. If we want our tunes to be "min haqodesh", then what the tzibbur knows is irrelevant. But then maybe you want to avoid Strauss simply because he wrote his music for chol. Regardless of his qualities (or lack thereof) as a person. We would similarly question singing Qedushah to "The Sound of Silence" and the like. But for me, I avoid Wagner because I can't enjoy his music. Knowing he wrote it has me free associating to his antisemitism, racism, and his believe in an "Aryan Master Race". (Google Arthur de Gobineau for the origin of that one and Wagner's admitation of de Gobineau's thought.) Similarly, our motive for cutting a songwriter or composer from the repetoir of shul music could be because we are convinced of his guilt and we want to simply avoid distraction from off-topic thoughts. Or, as per the Temple in question, a shul too could desice they want to be clear to any victims in the minyan to feel we side with them over their attackers. But in the case of these two rationalistic / psychological motives, excluding a songwriter's music would depend on what people are likely to know. And there is no reason to research into Strauss's personal life. Of course, perhaps first is the pragmatic question of whether guilt has really been established by criteria acceptable to halakhah, where we have chezqas kashrus, dan lekaf zekhus, etc... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself. micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - George Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:30 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 03:21:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot Message-ID: A perennial Avodah favorite: R'H Schacter - 1985 Shiur (Me- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations . . . do you have missiles in Cuba? . . . we don't have any missiles . . . so what happened to the umdena of . . . milsa d'avidei l'igluyei? . . . so Rav Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman hazeh . . . If the psychology change, the din changes . . . tan du . . .. Rabbi Soloveitchik . . . doesn't think the psychology changed . . . this point in psychology cannot change . . . if it says something in Parshat Bereishit . . . about the creation" KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 06:55:53 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Existential Chazakot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202145553.GB27786@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 03:21:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : R'H Schacter -- 1985 Shiur (Me -- R'YBS on Chazakot-What do you think) :> "I remember after Khrushchev was in the United Nations... do you :> have missiles in Cuba?... we don't have any missiles... so what :> happened to the umdena of... milsa d'avidei l'igluyei?... so Rav :> Soloveitchik said he doesn't think that umdnah applies any longer bzman :> hazeh... If the psychology change, the din changes... tan du.... Rabbi :> Soloveitchik... doesn't think the psychology changed ... this point :> in psychology cannot change... if it says something in Parshat :> Bereishit... about the creation" Again, the problem is that is very much NOT what RYBS said when speaking out against R' Rakman's BD. RYBS held tan du to be an example, not an exception. RAK posted a transcript at http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html To quote where RYBS literally says the opposite: ... Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos, but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo ... I think in all these conversations all we've established is what RYBS's opinion wavered or evolved (away from it being a general aspect of chazaqos), and we haven't gotten anything on what anyone else holds. Except, by implication, R' Rackman. And if RYBS's final opinion is that there are two kinds of chazaqah (3 really, but we're not discussing chazaqah demei'iqara altogether), which if any other chazaqos did he hold were based on Torah statements about unchanging aspects of human nature (or nature nature)? Or on aspects of human nature that are unchanging without scriptural proof of the fact? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Fri Feb 2 05:59:18 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 15:59:18 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Aneinu Message-ID: <490bff79-1b1d-9101-3a16-11e53c325e71@zahav.net.il> The rabbinate this week ruled that because of last week's rains the shaliach tzibbur should no longer say Aneinu in his repetition. I am having trouble understanding the decision. The country has a massive rain deficit. We could have a wet year and we would still be in the red so to speak. From a machshava POV (and that is why I am asking about it in Avodah) what difference does a couple of days of rain make in terms of Aneinu? Does continuing to say Aneinu mean that we are ungrateful for the rain? Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 2 07:55:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven Message-ID: Please see the article at https://goo.gl/yARGe3 In light of the fact that what Levy did is a Chilul HaShem, then based on Rav Schwab's article Chillul Hashem it seems to me that Levy cannot fully repent until his death. There he writes Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the nonobserver and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity, heresy and licentiousness in the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." So even though Levy has served his time it does not mean that according to Judaism he is completely innocent. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Feb 2 10:29:23 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Offenders must repent before they are forgiven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180202182923.GB13051@aishdas.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:55:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : In light of the fact that what ... did is a Chilul HaShem, then : based on Rav Schwab's article ... : it seems to me that ... cannot fully repent until his death. Assuming he did it. I deleted the name because the person was investigated, cleared by police and Child Protected Services. There is no reason to presume guilt, which actually means it's assur for me to do so. But, treated the case as a hypothetical: Why quote R Schwab when what you're saying is straight from the gemara R Schwab quoted: :> we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul :> Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot :> fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)." HOWEVER, I would be clear that he CAN fully repent. Notice "teshuvah" in the gemara's list. What he cannot achieve is full kaparah. In terms of us as a society.... The recidivism rate is high, but it's wrong to pretend it's 100%. If the man did teshuvah, we shouldn't be invoking uvi'arta hara'ah beqirbekha. That Hashem didn't grant him full kapparah is between the offender and HQBH. And in terms of keeping our society safe, there are psychometric tests used by the penal system to assess a person's risk baasher hu sham. We can get the risk of who we trust down to the same ballpark as people whose history give us no cause to even ask the question (ie the unknowns who make of the rest of the community). :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:13:20 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aruch Hashulchan 225:7 gives two very different reasons for delaying Shehecheyanu from the seeing until the eating. The first is that despite the joy felt at seeing the new year's fruit, we must wait until that fruit is fully grown, and it is difficult to determine exactly when that occurs. Therefore, he says, we evade the question by waiting until it is actually ready to eat. According to this, I clearly understand that the Shehecheyanu is actually on the seeing and must come *before* the Haetz. But there is another reason given for delaying the Shehecheyanu. It is the second one given by AhS 225:7, and it is the only one given by Mishne Brura 225:11. Namely, nowadays, the amount of simcha that we get from seeing the new fruit isn't enough to say Shehecheyanu on. Please pay close attention to what the AsH writes there: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." It seems to me that if the AhS is going out of his way to stress that saying Shehecheyanu on the seeing is NOT a bracha l'vatala, then he is implicitly saying that it IS a b'dieved. If so, then the nature of this bracha has changed. It used to be true that "Seeing comes first and therefore Shehecheyanu comes first," but it is not true anymore, because seeing has become mostly irrelevant. "Mostly irrelevant," but not totally irrelevant, because if one did say Shehecheyanu on seeing, it's not a bracha l'vatala. But let's be honest. "It's not a bracha l'vatala" is a polite way of saying "wrong but not an aveira." The proper way to do it nowadays is to say the Shehecheyanu at eating time. The conclusions I draw from all this: According to the first reason of the AhS, the logic of "the seeing came first so Shehecheyanu should be first" is sound. But according to the second reason of the AhS, and the only reason given by MB, the Shehecheyanu on fruit nowadays is NOT on the seeing, but on the eating, in which case I remain befuddled on why the Shehecheyanu comes first - as indeed both the AhS and MB tell us to do l'maaseh - and I have resigned myself to chalk it up to inertia from when the Shehecheyanu WAS on the seeing. At this point, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, accepting the argument that the chiyuv for the Shehecheyanu began long before the eating did, and that this is why the Shehecheyanu should be said first. There is a similar situation in Hilchos Sukkah, but it leads to a different result. Mishne Brurah 639:46 - "... Whenever one enters (the sukkah), even though he is not eating there he says the bracha (Layshev Basukkah) because the sitting and standing there is a mitzvah too ... Nevertheless the minhag of the whole world islike those poskim who don't say the bracha except when eating. Even if sitting in the sukkah before eating for an hour, they don't say the bracha, for they hold that the bracha said later on over the food will cover everything, because that's the ikar, and it covers sleeping and relaxing and learning, all of which is tafel to it ..." The parallel is quite clear to me. In the case of sukkah, one should say Layshev immediately upon entering the sukkah, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. In the case of fruit, one should say the Shehecheyanu immediately upon seeing the new fruit, but there are good reasons to save it for eatingtime, and that's the minhag. We have said that Shehecheyanu precedes Haetz because seeing precedes eating. If so, then if we enter the sukkah now, with plans to eat later on, then when that time finally arrives, the Layshev Basukkah ought to precede the Hamotzi/Mezonos. But it doesn't! Whenever we say Layshev together with a food bracha, the Layshev is said *second*. Why is that? How is sukkah different from fruit? Why is the Shehecheyanu said first, but the Layshev is said second? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 00:39:38 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 10:39:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi Message-ID: Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat Mishpatim in particular? The nearest that I'm aware of is Chief Rabbi Hertz's Humash, which is, let's say, not as popular today as it was when I was young. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 08:30:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 16:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:2 Message-ID: <1517761854820.94372@stevens.edu> Shemos 20:2 I, HaShem, shall be your God, I, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. Below is some RSRH's commentary on this pasuk. If this verse is not to be taken as a declaration but as a mitzva, a commandment, it does not mean "I, HaShem, am your God," but "I, HaShem, shall be your God." Thus it lays the basis for our entire relationship to God, constituting the duty that our Sages call kabalas ol malchus shamayim, "accepting the yoke of God's kingship." What the philosophers, ancient and modern, call "the belief in the existence of God" is as remote as can be from the meaning of this verse regarding the foundations of Jewish thought and Jewish life. The fundamental truth of Jewish life is not belief in God's existence, nor that God is one and only one. It is, rather, that the one and only God, the God of truth, is my God: He created and formed me, gave me my standing, informed me of my duty, and He continues to create me and to form me, to keep me, to guide me and to lead me. My belief is not that my connection to Him is through an endless chain of events as a chance product of a universe of which He was the first cause aeons ago. Rather, my belief is that every breath that I take and every moment of my existence is a direct gift of His power and love, and that my duty is to devote every moment of my life to His service alone. In other words, the essential thing is not the knowledge of God's existence, but the awareness and the acknowledgment that He is my God, that my fate is in His hands alone, and that He alone establishes the work of my hands. Corresponding to the command anochi HaShem Elokecha there is but one response: Atah Elokai! Hence, more than any other nation, we owe to God whatever we possess - head, heart and hand. All that the Egyptians had denied us was restored to us by God Himself: our personal individuality, the right to acquire possessions, and the possessions themselves. Consequently, He alone has dominion over our lives and our property, and we belong exclusively to Him. To His service we dedicate our lives, capabilities and possessions, and we acknowledge Him alone as the Guide of all our actions. Only our total subservience to God freed us from servitude to man. Only on this condition were we liberated and granted our independence. Whereas all people of all other nations are indebted to God for their creation and existence, we are indebted to Him for our historical and social existence also. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 4 13:14:16 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:14:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH's Commentary on Shemos 20:12 Message-ID: <1517778857304.3077@stevens.edu> Below are some excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you. I think he makes some points that some may not be aware of. God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions. Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis. Yetzias mitzryim and matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition, and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their parents. Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly, kibud av v'aim is the basic condition for the eternity of the Jewish nation. Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to exist. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lisa at starways.net Sun Feb 4 09:11:45 2018 From: lisa at starways.net (Lisa Liel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 19:11:45 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Hammurabi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/2018 10:39 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > Are there any mainstream Torah sources that talk about the Hammurabi > Code, compared and contrasted with Torah in general or Parshat > Mishpatim in particular? Hammurabi is properly dated to the time of the Judges, as is Ur-Nammu of Ur III, whose code preceded his. Lisa From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:22:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:22:43 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: . Mechaber 298:5 writes: "One who cannot smell does not say the bracha on besamim, unless he intends to be motzi his children of chinuch age, or to be motzi someone who doesn't know [how to do it himself]." Mishne Brura 298:13 differs: "All the acharonim disagree with this. They hold that it's *only* his children that he can be motzi, because their chinuch in mitzvos falls on him. But he can't be motzi someone who doesn't know how, because [of the rule that] he isn't obligated and therefore can't be motzi others. Even though, essentially, one *can* be motzi others for kiddush and havdala even if he isn't obligated (such as if he already yotzay), these [kiddush and havdala] are different, because they are a Chovah on every Jewish man and all Jews are responsible for one another, whereas this [besamim] is only a Minhag Chachamim, for which you don't have to go out of your way, as above in se'if 1. [Therefore] it is like any Birkas Hanehenin, which one can't be motzi others unless he himself is benefiting at the same time, as above in 167:19." Here's my question: Why are we allowed to interrupt between the Hagafen and the drinking, to do this non-chiyuv minhag of the besamim? Why is it not a hefsek? To my mind, there is a very simple reason why the bracha of *Havdala* is not a hefsek, namely that I already said Hagafen, but it is assur to drink the wine without Havdala. Therefore the bracha of Havdala is necessary for the Hagafen and is not a hefsek. (That's my understanding of Beis Hillel's shita on Brachos 51b, although it is expressed there in terms of kiddush, not havdala.) But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? Point of comparison: The Simanim of Rosh Hashana Night are not a recent innovation; it's mentioned in Gemara Krisos 6. But no one (to my knowledge) ever suggested doing these Simanim in the middle of Kiddush. It is certainly relevant to RH, but there's no connection to Kiddush, so it is done as a separate ritual from kiddush. Besamim ought to be the same: relevant to Motzaei Shabbos, but unconnected to Havdala. So why is it inserted? Brachos 52a considers various different sequences for the Havdala procedure, but I don't see that this idea was even considered. They discuss whether to say Besamim/Ner or Ner/Besamim, but it is just taken as a "given" that they would come between the Hagafen and the drinking. Why? Akiva Miller Note: I imagine that this whole question applies equally to the Ner, because it too is in the category of "you don't have to go out of your way to get it", as per Mechaber 298:1. The reason I focused on the Besamim is simply because that's where I found the MB explicitly saying that it's not a "chovah". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:02:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205010228.GA32674@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:21:06PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : As I understand it, eggs have a great deal in common with milk: Eggs : are kosher if and only if the source animal was kosher, and this is : impossible to determine simply by looking at it... Well, actually, Chullin 64a and YD 86:1 give simanim for eggs. If it is round on both ends, pointy on both ends, or the white doesn't fully surround the yolk, the egg is from a non-kosher species. If it is round on one end, pointy on the other, and the white fully surrounds the yolk, bring the egg to someone who hunts birds/eggs and he can recognize the breed. An advantage to working with a solid rather than a liquid. : And yet, I never hear : of anyone nowadays who insists on a mashgiach to certify that his eggs : are from a kosher bird. Because we recognize chicken eggs, and would indeed ask a rav if you opened a carton and found something abnormal? : I'm just guessing, but perhaps the gezera on milk was never on "milk" : to begin with. Maybe it was a general law about foods where the : kashrus problems had risen to a certain level... Except it never gets phrased that way. R ZP Frank was so sure it was specifically milk that he rules milk *powder* was never included! In any case, it's hard to know which risks get covered with a geziera and which not. It seems that some gezeiros deal with things far less likely than other cases that aren't addressed. I proposed the guess that it's historical accident. A mistake that happened to get frequently made got a gezeira. And therefore there is no way to reverse engineer a rule. But it's a guess made out of whole cloth. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Sun Feb 4 17:19:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Are Cow & Donkey milk Min BeMino [never Battel] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180205011940.GB32674@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:25:26PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : However, when it is added to cows milk it is not discover-able. The Kashrus : concern is that it might be in proportions greater than 60. However, ought : it not be Min BeMino which is never Battel? Why would the milk of two different minim be min bemino? : Similarly, why is the milk [and the cheeses made from such milk] from a : herd of cows that will undoubtedly have a couple of Tereifah cows Kosher - : is it not Min BeMino? The safeiq is on each cow -- this is rov in the sense of kol deparish, before there is a taaroves. Chozer veni'ur undoes bitul, when you add more of something that was mevutal. I don't think there is an equivalent when you use rov to ignore the possibility that any issur ever was added to begin with. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From zev at sero.name Mon Feb 5 15:21:48 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Shehcheyanu (Purim torah) Message-ID: <0fcba39b-bbfb-d2c3-077f-978b4dffe946@sero.name> Apropos of our recent discussion of shehecheyanu, last week at the grocery store I saw the first homentashen of the season, and wondered out loud whether one should say shehecheyanu at the sight. Of course the answer I expected, if any, was that in principle one should, but it will be included in the shehecheyanu we'll say on the megillah. However someone standing by came up with a better answer: as the label proudly proclaims, the homentashen are yoshon, and therefore not shehecheyanu :-) -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From meirabi at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:05:41 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Bartenura also expresses the same, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. See also Tosafos Yom Tov. AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated because of Chasnuss, but this would not have been convincing by itself (as is the case with wine) so they needed to reinforce the argument to make it persuasive, with the consideration (by scaring people) that it is made in and with non Kosher utensils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcohen at touchlogic.com Tue Feb 6 07:08:12 2018 From: mcohen at touchlogic.com (M Cohen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 10:08:12 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah Message-ID: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> (btw, if anyone wants a copy of all of the RSMiller Q&As, contact me offline at mcohen at touchlogic.com. Mc) # 1612 The Neighborhood Good Flood Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there kangaroos on the tayva? A. Whether all animals worldwide died during the Mabul may be open to discussion. Fish were not included in the decree of destruction by the Mabul as Rashi (7: 21) quotes from the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 108a) Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a suggested that maybe animals in lands uninhabited by humans did not perish. Another possibility is that most lands including Australia, were then joined as one single land mass. Maharitz Chiyois (Nidah 23a) teaches that the Mabul caused great geologic disturbances that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none. Bereishis Rabbah (28:3), Ramban (8:11) and others mention that the very foundations of the planet were affected during the flood. Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 08:49:12 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? Message-ID: <1518022135948.72080@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. YL Q. Can one bake fish and meat in an oven at the same time? A. The Gemara in Pesachim (76b) cites an argument whether a dry kosher item baked in an oven together with a dry non-kosher food is prohibited, even if there was no physical contact between the two. Do we say, raicha milsa, aroma is significant, or raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant? The Rashba writes that even the lenient opinion that holds aroma is not significant, allows this is only bidieved, after the fact, if the baking already took place, but lichatchia, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked simultaneously in an oven. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 108:1) rules like the lenient view, that raicha lav milsa, aroma is not significant, bidieved, after the fact, but lichatchila, before the fact, kosher and non-kosher foods should not be baked together. What is the status of raicha, aroma, with respect to meat and fish? The Rama writes (YD 116:2) that we treat meat and fish exactly like kosher and non-kosher: Bedieved, after the fact, once the baking took place, the foods can be consumed because aroma is insignificant, but lichatchila, before the fact, fish and meat should not be baked together in one oven. On the other hand, the Shach 116:1 quotes the Be'er Sheva who maintains that fish and meat are treated more stringently since we are dealing with a situation of sakana, danger. Aroma poses a danger even bedieved, and one may not eat meat and fish that were baked together. Common practice is to follow the lenient view of the Rama (See Aruch HaShulchan YD 116:10). Our discussion relates to dry fish or meat. If the fish or meat contains liquid, there is an issue of zeiya, steam, and there may be a concern even bedieved if baked together. It is noteworthy that if either the meat or fish are covered while they are baking, there is no problem of reicha, and this may be done lichatchila (YD 108:1). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 7 10:29:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Teaching torah to Women Message-ID: <1518028126771.81412@stevens.edu> Please download the file at http://www.thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol14Issue3.pdf YL [The kof-K's "Ha;achically Speaking" v14i3, "Teaching Torah to Women". -micha] From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:04:20 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:04:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Feb 7 19:07:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 03:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices Message-ID: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is a good tshuva to read! KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 8 03:16:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180208111644.GC5027@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:04:20AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is anyone aware of halachic : sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? The problem is that until recently, and particularly in Israel, the context was where a shul with no consistent nusach would cause fighting and the whole agudos-agudos issue meant requiring a single nusach as the shul's minhag hamaqom. This social setting in which democratizing the minyan's nusach adds to the unity is new. (And not true here in the US.) So, I would look among recent and contemporary Israeli posqim, not expecting to find it addressed elsewhere. And it seems even in Israel, it doesn't always increase unity, as is evienced by: : At mincha, : the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him afterwards : and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 8 21:47:53 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 07:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8c8a4d779bdc4138a507c0b96d77eff0@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On 2/8/2018 5:04 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > Is anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of > mixed nusach? I once read an on line source which said that Rav Ovadia was OK with a beit knesset not having a fixed nusach but he didn't like it when the nusach was mixed during any one tefilla or switching from Ashekenaz in Shacharit to something else for Mussaf. [Email #2.] > he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW -- I'm > told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot > privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of > halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? BTW the Tzohar Rosh HaShanah/Yom Kippur minyanim mix the nusachim for the piyuttim. Where I go there are two shaliach tzibburs - one to say the Ashekanzi parts and one to say the Sefardi parts. So it isn't just shalom bayit but an attempt to have everyone feel at home. Ben From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Feb 9 07:20:23 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <25443b3fab12455684f8bfab26e14d5d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <81.BE.03203.94CBD7A5@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 09:46 AM 2/9/2018, Joel Rich wrote: >Strange to me: In Shtiblach I've gotten used to the nusach being >determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R'Moshe, I sneak >a peek at the Shatz's siddur to determine what kedusha to say. I've >gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their own kaddish no >matter what the shatz does, but today I was really surprised. At >mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 middot! I asked him >afterwards and he told me this was the shul, minhag due to shalom >bayit. [BTW - I'm told that R'OY held bnai eidot hamizrach should >say the 13 middot privately with trop at an ashkenazi minyan.] Is >anyone aware of halachic sources that deal with the question of mixed nusach? If one follows what the SA says (as opposed to what the ARI says on should say), the GRA, and Minhag Frankfurt, there is no need to change from the Nusach Ashkenaz Kedusha. One does not say what the Shatz says first, but answers Kadosh, Kadosh, etc. Then just Baruch kavod, etc, and then just yimloch etc. This is all I ever say in kedushah for shacharis. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 10 17:26:05 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Richard Wolberg) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Something to Ponder Message-ID: I recently heard a lecture on the Adon Olam prayer. The rabbi who gave the lecture prefaced the following fascinating gematria by saying that ordinarily the particular source for this gematria indicated he ordinarily doesn?t think that much about it and looks upon it in a rather neutral way. However, he said the following gematria was an exception and that it has definite mystical value. The gematria of the two words Adon Olam is exactly the same (207) as the gematria of the two words Ein Sof. The lecture was more than an hour, so to summarize ? Adon Olam, The Master of the World (Universe) is the Ein Sof (infinity plus). Shavua tov. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 21:00:51 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > Strange to me: In Shtiblach I?ve gotten used to the nusach being > determined by the Shatz. Since the psak I follow is R?Moshe, I > sneak a peek at the Shatz?s siddur to determine what kedusha to > say. I?ve gotten used to the eidot hamizrach folks saying their > own kaddish no matter what the shatz does, but today I was really > surprised. At mincha, the shatz was ashkenaz but said the 13 > middot! I asked him afterwards and he told me this was the shul, > minhag due to shalom bayit. [BTW ? I?m told that R?OY held bnai > eidot hamizrach should say the 13 middot privately with trop at > an ashkenazi minyan.] Is anyone aware of halachic sources that > deal with the question of mixed nusach? When I read this, I found myself wondering what Rav Moshe Feinstein might have said about such minyanim, so I decided to use the Yad Moshe of listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn to review R' Moshe's psakim on this topic. As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The fifth of those teshuvos is titled "If there is a kepeida [i.e., should one be makpid] not to daven in a tzibur that the minhag there is that each one davens in another nusach." I will try to translate it for y'all: "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls [all together] in a large building, where there is no established Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the nusach of the congregation.)" Please note that the last section, which I put in parentheses, appears in the Igros Moshe in parentheses and also in a smaller font. If I remember correctly, that means it was not in the original teshuva written by Rav Moshe himself, but was added by the family members who edited the volume. In addition to the two teshuvos mentioned in that last section, I would also add Orach Chayim vol 2, Siman 23. Another interesting one is OC vol 4 Siman 33, which does not discuss how to daven in a different-nusach shul, but it does discuss acquiring membership in such a shul. Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Sat Feb 10 22:46:11 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mixing nusach hatfila In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87D99548-02CA-4DF6-B3E3-0B705AD729A8@sibson.com> > > As it turns out (and I would not have known this without the Yad > Moshe), there *is* a teshuva which speaks directly about minyanim of > mixed nusach. Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim vol 5 Siman 37, is a > collection of several teshuvos addressed to Rav Moshe's grandson, Rav > Mordechai Tendler. It is dated 17 Marcheshvan 5781 (autumn 1980). The > fifth of those teshuvos > "So, there are two places before you to go to daven. One is many shuls > [all together] in a large building, where there is no established > Nusach Tefila. Rather, whoever goes up to the amud, davens in the > nusach he is used to, and all the daveners act as they want, each one > according to his habit. The second [place] is an established shul, > where they daven in the nusach of the chassidim from Poland and > Hungary, but all of them the same. It is pashut, in my opinion, that > the small differences which exist between the nuschaos, are not > considered anything in halacha [lo nechshavin l'dina klum], and one > can daven in the first tzibur, and it does not constitute Lo > Tisgod'du, because everyone knows [yadua l'kol] that there's no > halachic distinction in them. And especially, because everything, each > individual doesn't raise his voice so much that others would know what > he's davening, and the Shmoneh Esreh is said silently. The words of > Kedusha, that this one says Nekadesh and that one says Nakdishach, > since there's no real need for the congregation to say this at all, as > found at the beginning of Siman 125, there's definitely no Lo > Tisgod'du, nor any fear of machlokes, even though it would certainly > be best to use the wording that the Shliach Tzibur is saying. > Therefore, there is no difference, in my opinion. (And see what was > written in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim volume 2 Siman 24, beginning "Umah > Shehatefilin", and Siman 104, that in a place that does have an > established nusach, one has to say whatever is said out loud in the > nusach of the congregation.)" Thank you for the citation. Does sound like r Moshe is discussing a bdieved Case and that he was not asked how such a group should be set but rather what to do in case these are the rules the group has accepted upon itself. Is it assumed that there was some rabbinic advice already asked by the group in advance In any event it is a quite obvious difference in the Mourners kaddish and when one group says 13 midot out loud. I wonder what the response would be with the fact pattern Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 11 02:35:33 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Relationaship between the Written and Oral Law Message-ID: <1518345311313.59855@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 21 2 If you purchase a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out free, without paying. ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????: This is to be the civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to regulate human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights. But with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man sells another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!! This beginning would be unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written Law actually the ?book of law? of the Jewish people, the sole primary source of ?Jewish law.? What a mass of laws and legal principles must have already been stated and established, considered and clarified, before the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are only exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which limit the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal freedom, that the Law begins! However, the primary source of Jewish law is not the written word, the ?Book,? but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the ?Book? serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise. The Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already been transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them for forty years, before Moshe ? just before his death ? turned over to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the exceptional cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly. On the whole, the ?Book? records not principles of law, c'lalim, but individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an instructive manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The language of this ?Book? was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an unusual term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an extra or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal concepts. This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so that the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text before them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they received by word of mouth. The relationship between Torah sh'b'kasav and Torah sh'baal peh is like that between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the lecture itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their brief notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that a word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the underscoring of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas, observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did not attend the instructor?s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If they try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding stars for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear completely meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to reconstruct) for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems unclear as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading nowhere. God?s Law, the Torah, wants to instill in us the principles of justice and humanity, on the basis of which it commands us to respect human rights. It starts off with the criminal, specifically one who takes the property of his fellow man, a crime that in all other states is punished by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment. Let us see what is to be done with such a criminal according to God?s Law in His state. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 12 07:53:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hirsch: The Ideas Message-ID: <1518450792239.90945@stevens.edu> Please see the video at This video features interviews with 3 people about the present day influence of RSRH. One of them is me. YL [Starting at 7:37 - RYGB immediately follows at 16:05 - -mb] From ykaganoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 08:58:36 2018 From: ykaganoff at gmail.com (Yonatan Kaganoff) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" Message-ID: For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its applications. In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". The basic criteria for being a security (and therefore under SEC regulation is): 1. It is an investment of money. 2. There is an expectation of profits from the investment. 3. The investment of money is in a common enterprise. 4. Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party. (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and which are securities.) IMHO, there is are obvious parallels to "Heter Iska". In a "Heter Iska", we convert the loan of a "commodity" (currency) into a "security" (the investment). Once a loan is defined as an investment, then the lender can receive profits from his investment, rather than interest on a loan which is prohibited because of interest. Is anyone on the list-serv familiar with both topics and can let me know if I am correct in the parallels? Yonatan Kaganoff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 13 07:54:08 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:54:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Man's Purpose in Life Message-ID: <1518537225103.95847@stevens.edu> The following is from the fourth letter of RSRH's 19 Letters Our purpose in life, therefore, is not the acquisition of possessions; we should not measure our achievement in life by the volume of outer or inner treasures that we accumulate. Our life's mission is concerned with what we become, what we make of ourselves, and what we give, not what we get. We should measure our attainments by the extent to which we fulfill God's Will with the help of our outer and inner acquisitions, utilizing every single one, small or large, for truly human deeds of Divine service. Our endeavors to acquire inner and outer possessions have value only because they provide us with the means to perform such deeds. >From the slightest mental faculty, and the nerve ganglia which serve it, to the strength of your hand, with which you are able to bring about changes in Creation and to which the entire realm of nature and every being within your reach are subject-all your capabilities are but tools lent to you, which one day will appear before the throne of God as witnesses for or against you, testifying whether you neglected them or used them well, whether you wrought blessing with them or curse. Accordingly, there is an outer, universally applicable criterion by which to judge man's deeds: whether or not they correspond to the Will of God. And there is an inner criterion by which to judge a man's greatness, which differs from case to case: not the sum total of his achievements and the amount of resources with which he has been endowed, but whether he has used them to the best of his ability to do God's Will. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eliturkel at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 09:13:57 2018 From: eliturkel at gmail.com (Eli Turkel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] manuscripts of the Rambam Message-ID: Manuscripts of the Rambam especially from the geniza are now available on the internet Friedberg Yad HaRambam Website for Mishne Torah http://fjms.genizah.org/?eraseCache=true -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 05:51:02 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 08:51:02 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] AN INTERESTING TAKE ON THE AVOT Message-ID: We?ve learned that tefillah (more accurately, bakasha) replaced the korbonot. However, there was prayer even prior to Matan Torah. The Talmud (Berachot 26b) points out that the Avot established the 3 daily prayers. Avraham (shacharit), Yitzchok (mincha) and Ya-akov (ma?ariv). What?s very interesting is that inherent in each of their names, the second letter intimates this. The second letter of Avraham is beit (boker), Yitzchok, tzadi (tzaharayim) and Ya?akov, ayin (erev). R. Wolberg From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Feb 13 17:15:10 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:10 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Fascinating Gematria Message-ID: If you take the word Chochma which applies to the wisdom of God, it is spelled chet, chof, mem, hey. Now if you spell each letter as it is with its numerical value: chet is spelled chet, yud, tav = 418, chof is spelled chof, peh = 100, mem is spelled mem, mem = 80 and hey, which can be spelled hey, yud which = 15. If you add all of the letters of the word Chochma: 418+100+80+15, they equal 613. It is brought down that the Chochma of God equals the Torah (taryag mitzvot). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Wed Feb 14 07:00:09 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:00:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu Message-ID: RAM cited the Arukh haShulchan: "The earlier Generations were temimim. They had simcha at seeing the new fruit, and they gave heartfelt thanks to Hashem for the good that He gives to the whole world. So *they* were able to say the bracha on seeing. But us? The simcha and gratitude is not noticeable by us, except when the body enjoys it at eatingtime. That's why it's not possible for us to say the bracha on seeing. They (Rama 225:3) did write that 'one who says it on seeing doesn't lose', but that only means that one should NOT say that for us it would be a bracha l'vatala, because it wouldn't be." Me: Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable garden or didn't eat them fresh). In the egalitarian vision of ish ta'hat gafno veta'hat te'eno, everyone would indeed be a farmer, so this applied and would apply to all. Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating the fruit. It has now been many hundreds of years that Jews became very urban. So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite shehe'hiyanu. The above approach also solves RAM's question why we have less compunctions delaying the onset of the berakha of leisheiv basukka for the sake of waiting until we actually eat. These are very different berakhot that are subject to different kinds of considerations. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: . > And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that > a new crop came in to what we do today is a much bigger change. > One that I wonder whether shehechiyanu really is appropriate > altogether. > ... > ... There is no experience of a new season. Whether or not you > wait to actually eat it. Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Feb 15 08:02:58 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Trump on Segulos and Superstition Message-ID: Please listen to the talk at https://goo.gl/5o3SoU Speaker Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Description (from the web page) A survey of some of the different perspectives of Segulos, the prohibition of superstition and a few examples. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 09:00:25 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 12:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Sorry, I shouldn't have approved RAM's email, as it's a reply to something I wrote him privately. No context! Well, here's the exchange, my email and his, starting with my quote of RAF: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 04:00:09PM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Perhaps we're missing a little obvious fact. Could it be that the joy : of seeing fruits is particularly felt by farmers, and that back when : everyone was a farmer of sorts, even if only in their garden (remember, : before the advent of refridgirators, either you had your own vegetable : garden or didn't eat them fresh)... Me: > The refigerator comment is a distraction, since (as you make clear below) > you're talking about a change that was at least 500 years ago. RAF, continuing: : Nowadays, hardly anyone is a farmer, and therefore we do not feel much joy : upon seeing the new fruits, hence we switched to blessing upon eating ... : So 500 years ago, in teh time of the Ramo, we were already not necessarily : rejoicing upon the mere sight of a new fruit, but the joy still lingered. : Meanwhile, we do not even necessarily feel the seasons in the grocery : store, therefore there are a bunch of fruits for which we no longer recite : shehe'hiyanu. Me, continuing: > I did mention that the whole taqanah of making shehechiyanu on new fruit > was not about looking for a dragonfruit or a gooseberry, or some other > exotic fruit you never otherwise would have spent that kind of money > on. And that the shift from an agrarian society's excitement that a new > crop came in to what we do togay is a much bigger change. One that I > wonder whether shehechiyanu really is apporpriate altogether. > Ironically, you can get an imported apple today at a time when it's > out-of-season in your part of the world for less money than that > dragonfruit. And for those of us in many parts of the world, the more > local one isn't so local that it's noticably fresher in taste. There is > no experience of a new season. Whether or not you wait to actually eat > it. I thought I was just repeating myself, so I didn't send to the list: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Yes, I can totally agree with this. It is an important question; maybe : we should drop this Shehecheyanu entirely? My suspicion is that it may : simply fade away of its own accord, simply from a lack of relevant : situations, exactly like the Shehecheyanu on seeing someone again : after a long while. Truth be told, I have made Rosh Hashana several : times without a new fruit, because despite my going to the market, I : simply didn't see any fruit that was both new and tasty. : : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 15 10:22:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haetz and Shehecheyanu In-Reply-To: <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> References: <20180214184855.GD17842@aishdas.org> <20180215170025.GA15541@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180215182259.GA20883@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:11PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : BUT - do not lose sight of this question being a different one than : we've been discussing so far. Namely: *IF* the Shehecheyanu is going : to be said, is it before or after the Haetz? I am still satisfied with my earilier answer. The berakhah isn't really on eating, it's on the excitement (assuming the emotion's existence for the moment) of having a new fruit. And it's not a chiyuv, it's a reshus, so we are nohagim to wait until we eat the fruit. But even with this minhag, the shehechiyanu is still not on the eating. The din was made about seeing, even with the minhag, it's still a berakhah about seeing. We just utilize it being a reshus rather than a chiyuv not to make the berakhah on the first re'iyah. So why do we have to wait until the exact moment before eating -- without even the berakhah as a hefseiq? To my own mind, therefore, the question of the parenthetic comment above is really more determinant. We're trying to understand which joy the berakhah is on without necessarily feeling real joy at all! Chodesh Tov! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 15 18:58:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 02:58:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: <22ba83b00a014b5683fbd73df73a7c27@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin?(I'm thinking specifically of all the weekly divrei torah publications) My suspicion(and that's all it is so I am really wondering if anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their application today is less clear? Any insights into current rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Feb 17 15:31:13 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 18:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Tetzaveh Message-ID: <92FBBC58-D9EF-4CC6-8D39-71B8D14847EB@cox.net> Moshe's name is conspicuously missing from this sedra. What is interesting is that this mirrors the omission of God's name in the entire Megillas Esther; and Tetzaveh always falls right before Purim in a non leap year (and before Purim Katan in a leap year). Also, it falls around Moshe?s yahrzeit, the 7th of Adar and when Moshe tells God that if He doesn?t forgive the Jews for the Golden Calf, then erase his name from the Torah. So right at his yahrzeit, his name has been erased only from this Sidrah. (The GR"A says that Hashem foresaw that Moshe would die on the seventh of Adar). The following is most fascinating: Ch. 1, v. 1: "Va'y'hi" - This first word of the Megillah and the last word (10:3) "zaro" equal "Mordechai ha'Y'hudi" [gematria 314] (Roke'ach). Now it gets even more fascinating regarding an insight into the first and last words of the Megillah. We know that Hashem kept a low profile in the Megillah, orchestrating every event, but not having His name mentioned even once. Hashem's name which embodies this concept of constriction, "tzimtzum," is Shin-Dalet-Yud, Shadai. The first and last words of the Megillah equal 314, the numerical value of the name Shin-Dalet-Yud. We thus see in a mystical sense that from the first word until the last word, everything that happened was controlled behind the scenes by Hashem in the constricted form of natural occurrences. Likewise, though Moshe's name is not mentioned in Tetzaveh, he was still God's right hand man and the greatest prophet ever to live. His temporary absence merely underlines his overall presence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 02:14:34 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 10:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Yesterday in shul when I asked someone not to talk during Krias Ha Torah he asked me for a source that says one is not allowed to talk between the aliyahs. I quick google search turned up the following. YL >From https://goo.gl/WG5w2e The congregation is not permitted to talk while the Torah is being read, not even about matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent begins once the Torah has been opened to recite the blessings over it - Mishnah Brurah 146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study between aliyos - MB 146:6.) One may not leave the shul while the Torah is being read (even if he already heard the Torah and even if there's still a minyan without him - MB 146:1). One may, however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emteitz at gmail.com Sun Feb 18 03:52:28 2018 From: emteitz at gmail.com (elazar teitz) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:52:28 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> References: <1518948841392.54570@stevens.edu> Message-ID: RDYitzchok Levine wrote: On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Professor L. Levine wrote: Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of the MB), and says that his reason for prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but because it might continue into the aliya. He adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit brief conversations, especially nowadays when lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. I think this a classic example of "heter meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. EMT > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sat Feb 17 21:23:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 00:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Haman's yahrzeit Message-ID: . I am trying to figure out when Haman was hanged. Rashi on Esther 4:17 says that the three days of Esther's fast were Nisan 14, 15, and 16. Perek 5:1 tells us that Esther's first meeting with the king was on "the third day", which I presume to mean the third day of the fast, Nisan 16. That night, Motzaei Nisan 16 was the famous "sleepless night" documented at the beginning of Esther 6. Subsequent events -- the Mordechai parade, Esther's second meeting with Achashveirosh, and the hanging of Haman -- must have taken place no earlier than Nisan 17. So why do I find many sources saying that Haman was hanged on Nisan 16? Several such sources include https://www.ou.org/judaism-101/bh-yom-yom/nissan/ http://www.torahtots.com/timecapsule/thismonth/nisan.htm http://www.mayanyisroel.net/templates/blog/post_cdo/aid/2792698/PostID/60619 I suspect that the confusion might stem from exactly which three days were the fast. Above, I quoted Rashi that the three days were Nisan 14-16, but ArtScroll's Megillas Esther, on 5:1 says the following. (The parentheses and brackets are theirs; I did not note their use of italics: 1. Bayom hashlishi - Third day [of the fast (M'nos Halevi)]. It was the first day of Passover (Rashi). It seems to me that if the three days of the fast were Nisan 14 15 and 16, then the third day was Nisan 16. And on my calendar, Nisan 16 is the *second* day of Pesach. Why does ArtScroll say that the third day of the fast is the first day of Pesach? I do concede that IF the third day of the fast was the first day of Pesach, then the correct date of the hanging would have been Nisan 16, like other sources seem to say. But that would not be consistent with Rashi on 4:17. Am I looking at the wrong Rashi? Are there variant texts of this Rashi? Thanks! Akiva Miller From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Feb 18 11:24:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 19:24:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim Message-ID: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Sun Feb 18 19:27:51 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:27:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim In-Reply-To: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> References: <1518981850091.2581@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <8589de9ba9c943828a96670eaea5ddf5@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> From https://goo.gl/PtWVjN Kashrus Advisory - Tevilas Keilim February 15, 2018 from the OK: Please be advised: gift trays may need to be toiveled if they will be further reused for food use. According to Jewish law, the proprietor is not required to perform tevilas keilim but the consumer may be obligated to do so. Please consult your personal Rav. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder what triggered this warning now? Here are some sources from Hirhurim/audio roundup: Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz -Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 3 The western alliance is safe! A list of things that don't work for allowing full candy dishes to be sold without a lfnei iver concern, then possible approaches that work - 1) only make the package up after you order it (and then you should toveil first); 2) don't use glass but something that doesn't require tvila; 3) rely on R'Asher Weiss's opinion that store can toveil anyway; 4) only fill the dish with pre-packaged items so dish isn't really used (me - not sure how this actually works once you open a candy bag, it usually isn't of much use - so not sure why this is better than putting plastic sheeting under the candy). Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz-Ten Minute Halacha - The Candy Dish Problem Part 1 A real cliff hanger - can the vaad give a hechsher to a store that sells prefilled candy dishes? Toveiling the dish by the store doesn't work (not Kli Seudah for them) and most people won't take the candy out and toveil them (so lfnei Iver or mesayeah?). The one time use leniency doesn't work (the dish is not meant to be disposable) and the R'Moshe "could you do it without it" doesn't work l'chatchila. As R' Lebowitz later notes, there may be bigger issues facing klal Yisael J. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be enough for the stores to say CLOR on tevilla needs (we recently had some heimish nondairy whipped cream in a shpritz can which said in small print - consult your clor (or something like that in frumspeak) concerning using this product on shabbat. https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/12/the-candy-dish-dilemma/ KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:12:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:12:27 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading Message-ID: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:52 AM 2/18/2018, elazar teitz wrote: >RDYitzchok Levine wrote: > > ><"The congregation is not permitted to talk >while the Torah is being read, not even about >matters of Torah study. (The need to be silent >begins once the Torah has been opened to recite >the blessings over it ? Mishnah Brurah >146:4.)This is true even between aliyos. (There >may be room to be lenient regarding Torah study >between aliyos ? MB 146:6.) One may not leave >the shul while the Torah is being read (even if >he already heard the Torah and even if there?s >still a minyan without him ? MB 146:1). One may, >however, exit in-between aliyos if necessary. "> > > Google is selective in its psak. The Aruch > Hashulchan,cites the Beis Yosef (the source of > the MB), and says that his reason for > prohibiting is not the speaking per se, but > because it might continue into the aliya. He > adds that the Bach and The Magen Avraham permit > brief conversations, especially nowadays when > lengthy breaks occur because of mi shebeirachs. > > I think this a classic example of "heter > meiah rabbonim" -- there are more than 100 > rabbonim who talk bein gavra l'gavra. It is not google but the OU's site that I quoted. Please see the actual web page at https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz who served as Director of Programs for NCSY before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Feb 19 02:15:51 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht Message-ID: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of curiosity. See https://goo.gl/vKij3H I have only read 51 pages of this large volume, but I have to say that what I have read is to me simply beyond my understanding of Judaism. The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the ascents of his soul into heaven. Below is s short quote that summarizes these ascents. "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into God's plan, especially for the Jews." Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting? Also, RSRH writes that Am Yisroel needs no intermediary between it and HaShem, so how is one to reconcile this with the claim that the Besht was such an intermediary? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Feb 19 02:42:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 10:42:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hasidism, A New History Banned Message-ID: <1519036889546.69774@stevens.edu> Not surprisingly, the book Hasidism, A New History has been banned. See https://goo.gl/vSNRDh. Click on the English translation on the right to enlarge it. Apparently those who banned the book do not agree with the way the Torah portrays our great men. The following is from the new translation of the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch on Bereishis 12: 10 - 13. He is discussing the question of how Avraham could leave EY and put Sarah in danger. In light of this, I have to wonder why some think that all "negatives" about our predecessors should be suppressed. What I am talking about is the tendency of some to go so far as to deny that certain things took place in the past if they do not jive with our present view of what the religious world should look like. RSRH quotes the Ramban "Our father Avraham inadvertently committed a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land, about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another sin he committed" - nevertheless, none of this would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: "Here you have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!" It does not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust. Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: "Look upon Me! Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!" We are never to say: "This must be good and right, because so-and-so did it." The Torah is not an "anthology of good deeds." It relates events not because they are necessarily worthy of emulation, but because they took place. The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Feb 19 09:41:42 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:41:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Talking During Torah Reading In-Reply-To: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <90.71.03148.D23AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: All he did was to translate the text, he didn't give a survey of the relevant literature. Therefore I don't see how this page over rules the Aruch Hashulchan and any other poseik. Ben On 2/19/2018 12:12 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see the actual web page at > < https://goo.gl/WG5w2e>https://goo.gl/WG5w2e) The > person who wrote this is Rabbi Jack Abramowitz > who served as Director of Programs for NCSY > before becoming Associate Director of the Pepa > and Rabbi Joseph Karasick Department of Synagogue Services From saulguberman at mail.gmail.com Mon Feb 19 09:21:18 2018 From: saulguberman at mail.gmail.com (Saul Guberman) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Prof. Levine wrote: > Recently I purchased the new book Hasidism, A New History out of > curiosity. See > https://goo.gl/vKij3H ... > The book quotes from the writings of the Besht where he describes the > ascents of his soul into heaven.... > "According to these accounts, the Besht was a welcome guest in heaven, > interacting with important personages from the past like the biblical Ahiah > the Shilonite. The heavenly hosts affirmed his special spiritual status and > his unique role as intermediary between God and the world. He spoke > personally with Satan and the Messiah-in-waiting. This supernatural > communication was not only a means for the Besht to represent the needs of > the Jewish people before the heavenly power but also gave him insight into > God's plan, especially for the Jews." > Do Hasidim today believe that the Besht spoke to Satan and the > Messiah-in-waiting? ... Why wouldn't hasidim and others thing that the BESHT could not ascend to the heavens. There are stories in the gemorah like this. There are stories of the ARI doing this and Rav Caro talking with angels. Yahadus is more than 3,000 years old. RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:53 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 06:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich asked: > On the topic of shtarei hedyotot, I wonder why the reading of > newspaper advertisements on Shabbat is rarely addressed. If > there is no general heter, is this just a case of mutav > sheyihiyu shoggegin? (I?m thinking specifically of all the > weekly divrei torah publications) What do you mean "rarely addressed"? It is pretty clearly stated in Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata 29:46-47 and R' Ribiat pg 981, and many other seforim. If you mean that rabonim rarely speak out about it, my guess is that it is less a case of "mutav sheyihiyu shoggegin", and more like choosing one's battles selectively (though one could argue that there's little difference between those two ideas). > My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if > anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot > that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, > common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their > application today is less clear? Any insights into current > rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. In what way is the application less clear nowadays? Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:10 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] shtarei hedyotot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D6A0BF3-4765-49CB-AF51-D117660839E3@sibson.com> >> My suspicion (and that?s all it is so I am really wondering if >> anyone has clarified this) is that like a number of gzeirot >> that according to the algorithm should not be able to be undone, >> common practice has recognized the reality that perhaps their >> application today is less clear? Any insights into current >> rabbinic thinking would be very much appreciated. > > In what way is the application less clear /://:/.. Meaning that the concern that you would come to read other items such as loan documents may now not be considered as much a concern. I don?t know that?s a fact just a guess that it could. Be similar in poskims?minds similar to how we seem to have become much more lenient about medications on Shabbat Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:26:48 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221152648.GB26643@aishdas.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:43PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : But there's no real *need* to interrupt Havdala Al Hakos for the besamim, : is there? Why was it set up like that? Why couldn't Besamim simply be part : of Seder Motzaei Shabbos, either before or after Havdala Al Hakos? I can't answer your main question, because I don't feel it's a real "*need*", and therefore I can't explain why besamim and eish aren't a hefseiq between hagafen and drinking. If there is no requirement lachazor acharav, then how are they critical enough to not be a hefseiq? Obviously the answer is to make a chiluq in the criteria for criticality, but quantitative? Qualitative? However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 07:49:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221154955.GA10332@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:05:41PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with : clean utensils, they are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Why "ALL"? This is simply bishul aku"m, no? ... : AZ 36, oil was prohibited even though NTLifGam is permitted. See Kovets : Teshuvos Reb Y Sh Elyashiv Vol 3:115, that Shemuel really was motivated : because of Chasnuss... Shemu'el? Daniel! Stam shamnam is like stam yeinam, and explicitly mishum chasnus. Or at least it could have been, had it been equally nispasheit bekhol Yisrael. Which is Rav's explanation for the lack of issur today. I don't have qobeitz teshuvos RYSE. But it would seem to me logical to point out that what prohbited those keilim to begin with was still the gezeira mishum chasnus of the oil trapped in them. After all, Shemu'el isn't explaining Daniel, he is explaining how Rebbe's court had the authority to vote away Dani'el's legislation. Shemu'el is saying that he believes it was repealed in Rebbe's day as a side effect of pasqening about na"t lifgam. But the issur still was proposed for the commonly given reason. In any case, no one questions the mishum chasnus motive of bishul aku"m or stam yeinam (or shamnam). What is the new data you're using to generalize from? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them, micha at aishdas.org I have found myself, my work, and my God. http://www.aishdas.org - Helen Keller Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:35:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:35:49 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180221163549.GG2652@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". But the point of heter isqa is not to change the noun, but the verb. A person can't lend for neshekh o tarbit. Nothing said about what is lent. Admittedly the definition of "security" you gave seems specific to investing rather than lending. But still, I don't know if focusing on the object is the right approach. : (I am personally interested in which cryptocurrencies are commodities and : which are securities.) An easier question -- I don't think they're mamon. Mamon seems to be limited to the local primary medium of exchange. Even down to silver vs gold, if one metal is the primary coinage and the other is only used more rarely. Borrowing foreign currency has to be either linked to the local currency or it's ribbis derekh meqach umemkar, like a commodity. Hey, I'm totally ignorant on the subject. But when has that stopped me from chiming in before? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder] micha at aishdas.org isn't complete with being careful in the laws http://www.aishdas.org of Passover. One must also be very careful in Fax: (270) 514-1507 the laws of business. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 21 08:27:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Mabul and Dinosaurs from R Shlomo Miller shlitah In-Reply-To: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> References: <01a301d39f5c$4e74a030$eb5de090$@com> Message-ID: <20180221162717.GF2652@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:08:12AM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlita : Posted 2/5/2018 12:23 PM : :> Q. My son asked me how the animals which appear to be indigenous to :> Australia only (for example), arrived there after the flood? Were they :> there before the flood? Were they destroyed by the flood? Were there :> kangaroos on the tayva? As part of his description of the Dor haHaflagah, R SR Hirsch explains the need for a diversity of host countries with their own climate flora and fauna to get multiple perspectives. Leshitaso, people dind't scatter because they couldn't cross-communicate. Hashem scattered the people, which gave them contexts in which their languages diverged. So, no surprise that various animals or plants would be local to a given region, even if the flood did include lands that had no human settlement yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a micha at aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed." http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm Fax: (270) 514-1507 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Feb 21 19:23:44 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:23:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: . I asked why Besamim (and Aish) are inserted between Hagafen and Hamavdil. R' Micha Berger seemed to share my question, and then suggested: > However, besamim and aish give you the hana'ah necessary for > the berakhah of lehavdil. One braces the soul for the departure > of Shabbos, the other uses hav'arah, proving hana'ah from it > being chol. (Hana'ah? Looking at the shadows of your fingertips > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. On the other hand your wording suggests a marvelous way that Havdala MIGHT have developed: Step 1, say the bracha of besamim, and smell them, to "brace the soul for the departure of Shabbos". Then, say Hamavdil to actually mark the end of Shabbos. And in step 3, now that Shabbos has officially ended, light the ner and say the bracha, as Adam HaRishon did. But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Akiva Miller From zev at sero.name Wed Feb 21 22:26:31 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04800911-07c8-616f-cf21-9e8b80a333c5@sero.name> On 21/02/18 22:23, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > A second problem I have with our procedure is that > [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev > Shabbos] it*requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying > Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Why does it require that? If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 03:47:03 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:47:03 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180222114703.GC31855@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:23:44PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : > and your nails? Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.) Without : > both, you'd be making a berakhah more like Dayan ha'emes -- : > kesheim shemivorkhim al hatov... : : It's an intriguing idea, except that I've never before heard of : "hana'ah necessary for the berakhah of lehavdil." Do you have a : source? I always considered Havdala a Shevach, just like Kiddush is. Yes, as I wrote, one /could/ be praising G-d "kakh mevorkhum al hara" that Shabbos ends. But that's not havdalah. I don't have a maqor. Could be my father, it's something I "always knew" -- precedes my ability to remember learning it. A thinking on my feet answer: That sort of shevach wouldn't be al hakos. ... : But alas, that's NOT how Havdala developed. For some reason, the Ner : and Aish got stuck in the middle, which seems odd because of the : apparent hefsek. (A second problem I have with our procedure is that : [unless you're going to use a flame that's been burning since Erev : Shabbos] it *requires* a volunteer to do the sub-optimal act of saying : Hamavdil Without Shem Umalchus in order to light the candle.) Having no one who said "Atah Chonanatanu" in Maariv is the sub-optimal part of that picture. I don't know if they would coin this kind of thing to accomodate women who have no men around. (It would have been assumed they would find a man to make havdalah for them. Like the famous story of Rebbetzin Zacks -- nee Kagan, the daughter of the CC. She could have made her own Havdalah; she certainly knew how. But bachurim would come by to make Havdalah for her. Until the week where one bachur said (roughly), "Anshuldig, rebbetzin, but do you have a larger becher? I don't think this one is keshiur." And she replied, "But that was my father's becher!") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Feb 22 04:47:11 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > If the person lighting the candle has davened maariv and > said Ata Chonantanu, there's nothing suboptimal. Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos, but I had mis-learned it. (I had thought Rama was advising us to avoid all melacha prior to Havdala Al Hakos, but actually he's advising against a shita which would allow minor melachos even prior to Ata Chonantanu.) Thanks to this thread, I was forced to relearn it, and I think I have it straight now. Akiva Miler From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Feb 22 13:59:50 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:59:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it quite fun (amongst other things). Ben On 2/19/2018 7:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > RSRH is not the only commentator and expounder > on the religion. There is no reason to square this with his thoughts. He > was not a tanah, amorah, Gaon or Rishon. From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:29:59 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:29:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Birchat Kohanim Message-ID: <969eec8dbc174a4c8eee25c58c4ce61c@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> The Mishna Brurah tells us that the reason everyone says the ribbono shel olam (about dreams) in a Birchat Kohanim outside of Eretz Yisrael on Shalosh Regalim is because everyone must've had at least one bad dream in the interim. In Israel, where they duchen every day, the kohanim don't do the long tune on shalosh regalim (assumedly because they duchen every day so bad dreams can be covered immediately.) Question: So when do you say the ribbono shel olam in Israel if you have a bad dream (meaning, when would you have enough time during Birchat Kohanim to do so)? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Thu Feb 22 19:31:42 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gezel akum Message-ID: <4ba41b74e56d46c685430c13add4d332@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I'm deep into the sugya of gezel akum. One question I have is a very simple one on the basic source found in Sanhedrin 113a. Why does the gemara quote 2 drashot-one by Rabbi Akiva, a 3rd-generation Tanna, and one by Rav Huna, a 2nd-generation amora? The Rosh gives a reason for why both drashot might be needed (not overly satisfying to me) but doesn't address the timing issue. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Feb 22 11:59:44 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Latest Archeological Finding -- Yeshaiah haNavi's? Message-ID: <20180222195944.GA15737@aishdas.org> https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/44/2/7 They found a seal, not far from where they found Chizqiyahu haMelekh's, in the ofel by Har haBayis. It reads _____ (too broken to read, might even be a picture) LYShYH? NBY They're assuming / hoping the mangled letter on the first line is a vav and an alef on the broken off corner of the second, to read ... LeYashayah[u] Nav[i] Given the letters, and the likelihood it was left in royal precincts in the right era, there is reason to be optimistic. Or, as the article's title asks, "Is This the Prophet Isaiah's Signature?" An e-friend of mine quipped: Now I went them to find evidence of the 2nd Isaiah! RYGB shared this on Facebook, and someone expressed skepticism on two grounds. To paraphrase and answer, since I think they're the likely skeptical responses: 1- How solid is the provenance? Was it really found incontravertibly alongside Chizqiyahu's? I see no reason to ascribe non-professionalism to the archeologist. I don't in general know the quality of the provenience (the in situ location of the find) in the Ofel, but I do know that when they found Chizqiyahu's bulla some months ago, this was a big deal. The find of the king's seal wasn't itself the exciting part, they had a number of others. But this is the first time where the location checked out. So I think those in the field would consider it a given that Yeshaiah's signet was actually in Chizqiyahu's environs. (Again, until we find reason to start suspecting trickery.) 2- Is the final alef just wishful thinking? And who would sign their name "navi" even before their predictions become true? Isn't it gaavah? Nevu'ah is about "giving mussar", not predictions. But in any case, it was a job in the royal court. Someone had to be there to "speak truth to power", and in Hashem's name no less! For example, "Udevar H' hayah el Gad hanavi, chozeih David, leimor" (Shemuel 2 24:1, after the mid-pasuq pesuchah). Gad is "chozeih David". And our good kings actually accept the rebuke! David does teshuvah after Nasan yells at him for Uriah's death. The office is a way to temper some of the corruptive influence of holding power. So, if Yeshaiah were "chozeih Chizqiyah", then including his professional title lacks the problem of ascribing bravado to Yeshaiahu haNavi. That said, the navi himself does not describe himself that way. 1:1 reeads "asher chazah al Yehudah viYrushalaim biymei Uziyahu, Yosam, Achaz, Yechizqiyahu, malkhei Yehudah." "About" "in the days of". Similarly every other occurance of "*MLK*" in a Bar Ilan search of Yashaiah. "Vayhi biymei Achaz ben Yosam ben Uziyahu meleakh Yehudah..." Things said to kings, and about kings ("asher chazah al"), or during the reign of a king. (BTW, "*MLK*" matches "melekh" and "hamelekh", even though my kaf was kefufah, and the matched one is peshutah. Also the q'ri of "MLKM" for "Mah lakhem" at 3:15. Antoher BI search tip, "*" will match any piece of a word.) My "if" is a guess, a possibility. After all, he has nevu'os in the seifer that aren't to the melekh. Even if it was his profession, that's not key to understanding his book. So maybe he didn't bother to spell it out. And the word could be something else. But that would mean there was another personal with a name that begins Yeshaiah who was a member of Chizqiyahu's court or whose signet somehow otherwise ended up among their things. I think the exciting possibility is the most plausible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Feb 25 14:25:00 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 17:25:00 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Ki Sissa Message-ID: <447CE680-8DD9-4A84-BAF1-4786B1814363@cox.net> 31:16-17 V'shomru... The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath...it is a sign forever that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed... The six days of Creation remind us that we were created for this world. But the Sabbath reminds us that the world was created for us. Each day is a step closer to the ultimate realization of life's profound meaning. The Talmud says that before Adam sinned, his radiance was like the radiance of God, but after he sinned, his radiance became darkened. This is why there is the obligation of lighting the Shabbos candles. The sin of Adam and Eve extinguished the light of the world and lighting the Shabbos candles symbolically rekindles the light of the world for at least a day. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody. We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Feb 27 06:04:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:04:32 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] All food decrees driven by social isolation policy Message-ID: The Mishneh AZ 35 b The Mishneh lists items manufactured by G which may not be consumed, but are permitted for benefit. And these are items that are prohibited, but may nevertheless be used for benefit: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew was not monitoring him and their bread and their oil. The Mishneh notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. then resumes its list: and boiled vegetables and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ?ilak, and a sliver of ?iltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but may be used for benefit. The Gemara AZ 35, Rashi explains - SheLaKos, food cooked even in and with clean utensils. They are ALL prohibited due to Chasnuss. Rashi is saying 2 things firstly, defining Shelakos Next, explaining the ENTIRE structure of Chazal banning G's foods ALL things that Chazal forbade are prohibited due to Chausnuss Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Feb 27 15:05:01 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila Message-ID: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. Given that it is preferable to hear Megillas Esther together with a large crowd (b'rov am hadras Melech), is it better to daven with a small crowd at the Vasikin Minyan (at sunrise), or to daven with a larger crowd later at the main Minyan? A. In this case, there are two competing factors. On the one hand, it is preferable to perform a mitzvah at the earliest opportunity (zerizim makdimim l'mitzvos). On the other hand, it is preferable to hear the Megillah together with a large crowd (b'rov am). The question here is which one of these considerations takes precedence. Rav Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. I daven at the Flatbush Vosikin Minyan and on Purim morning the minyan will be held in the High School Bais Medrash of Yeshiva Rabeinu Chaim Berlin. In previous years there has been a very large crowd of both men and women, so at least here in Flatbush there is no problem with Vosikan and a large crowd. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 02:48:30 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228104830.GA11693@aishdas.org> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:05:01PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... : A. ... Rav : Zylberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Megila 27b) rules that in this case, : it is proper to delay the mitzvah, so it can be performed b'rov : am. This is because joining together with a large crowd offers : a greater publicization of the miracle, which is a fundamental : component of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah. However, if one : is accustomed to davening with the Vasikin Minyan all week long, : they should daven there on Purim as well. This is because the Mishnah : Berurah (687:7) writes that one who has a makom kavua (set place to : daven) need not change their location to daven b'rov am. Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: maqom kavuah berov am kevasiqin Of course, if someone were talking about berov am and leining Mon & Thu, the first two concerns are intertwined. Qeri'as haTorah is frequent enough for regularly davening kevasiqin to *define* one's maqom kavua. This is really only an issue for people like myself, who want to daven qevasiqin because it's Purim, and there is so much to do before the se'udah. I have a feeling or at least a hope that shalom bayis trumps all three... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From cantorwolberg at cox.net Wed Feb 28 02:32:41 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Purimfest Message-ID: <28F230C1-8F64-4AFF-A3A4-10D94E7DE14F@cox.net> On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders. > NurembergGaol, Germany > 16 October 1946 > International News Service > ...Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m. > While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, > dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish > shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his > days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds > rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his > eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, > his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, > directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked > steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching. > As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification > formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!' > The shriek sent a shiver down my back. > As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said > sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query > Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.' > The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, > 'Julius Streicher.' > As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He > was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's > rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman. > Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at > them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday > celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient > persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]... > Streicher had been a Nazi since early in the movement's history. He was > the editor and publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Das Strummer." In > May of 1924 Streicher wrote and published an article on Purim titled "Das > Purimfest" (The Festival of Purim). In order to publish his vitriolic > attack Streicher must have had a good deal of knowledge about Jewish > thought and practice. However we can only speculate to what extent > he was aware of the remarkable parallels between Haman and his own > execution. However, they are indeed striking: > "And the king said to Esther the queen, 'The Jews have slain and > destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and the ten sons of > Haman...Now whatever your petition, it shall be granted; whatever your > request further, it shall be done.' > Then said Esther, 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews > that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also as this day, and let Haman's > ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.' " (Esther 9:12-14) > If Haman's ten sons had already been killed, how could they hanged? > Our Sages comment on the word "tomorrow" in Esther's request: "There > is a tomorrow that is now, and a tomorrow which is later." (Tanchuma, > Bo 13 and Rashi, Shemot 13:14). > In the Megilla, the names of Haman's ten sons are written very large > and in two columns. This is in distinct contrast to the style of the > rest of the Megilla. The left-hand column contains the word v'et (and) > ten times. According to our Sages the word v'et is used to denote > replication. The inference is that another ten people were hanged in > addition to Haman's ten sons. > If we examine the list of Haman's sons three letters are written smaller: > the taf of Parshandata, the shin of Parmashta and the zayin of Vizata. > Those three letters together form taf-shin-zayin, the last three numbers > of the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to the secular year 1946, > the year that those ten Nazi criminals were executed. > The Nuremberg trials were a military tribunal and thus the method of > execution was usually by firing squad. The court, however, prescribed > hanging. Esther's request "Let Haman's ten sons be hanged" echoes down > the ages, > Equally uncanny is that the date of the execution (October 16, 1946) > fell on "Hoshana Rabba" (21 Tishrei), the day on which G-d seals the > verdicts of Rosh Hashana for the coming year. > As the Megilla recounts, a decree that the king has sealed cannot be > rescinded, and thus Achashverosh had to promulgate a second decree to > allow the Jewish People to defend themselves. In other words, that first > decree was never nullified. > Our Sages teach us that eventually the Jewish People will return to G-d > either voluntarily, or if not, G-d will raise up another despot whose > decrees will be "as severe as Haman" (Sanhedrin 97b). > When we look toward the place of our original encounter with Haman and > see the rise of a fanatic whose rhetoric rivals our most vicious enemies, > we should remember that history most often repeats itself for those who > fail to learn its lessons. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hazzanet" group. ... From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Feb 28 06:31:13 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] When and Where to hear the Magila In-Reply-To: <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <1519772693633.59000@stevens.edu> <562bfb0997f544febd1e2736a2e8754d@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: At 05:48 AM 2/28/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >Interesting. RYZ's hava amina was that berov am would trump kevasiqin, >if it weren't that it was your maqom qavua: Berov Am is important and that is why I have always wondered how in some places they make 2 or 3 or 4 or even more minyanim on Motzoei Shabbos when 2 or 3 or more people have yahrtzeit during the following week. When I was an Avel I never went along with making another minyan if there was another avel. I felt that Berov Am was more important, and hence I would let the other Avel daven for the amud and just say Kaddish. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Feb 28 06:40:36 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my obligation of hearing the Megillah? A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah, not to read it. Mo'adim U'zmanim (2:170, quoting the Leket Yosher) extrapolates from this that a woman's requirement is one of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). Therefore, should she miss a word during the reading of the Megillah, she has still fulfilled her obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 689:1) indicates that women do need to hear every single word. Therefore, it is advisable that everyone follow along quietly with a Chumash, so if one misses a word or two, they can quickly read the missing words and then continue hearing from the Ba'al Korei. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:01:57 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:01:57 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah In-Reply-To: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> References: <1519828836281.34685@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180228200157.GE27309@aishdas.org> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:40:36PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis :> Q. If I miss one word of the Megillah reading, have I fulfilled my :> obligation of hearing the Megillah? :> A. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 690:48) writes that if one misses a single :> word, the obligation of reading the Megillah was not fulfilled. There :> may be a difference between men and women in this regard. The Rama :> (O.C. 689:2), based on Tosfos (Megillah 4a), writes that a woman's :> obligation of Megillah is to "hear" the Megillah... The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". The question talks about "hearing" every word, but as the answer makes clear, the obligation is to *listen*. So, when the Rama says (based on the Mordechai, the source in Tosafos is the teshuvah writer's conjection, not the Rama's citation) a women is mevarekhes "lishmoa megilah" -- does it mean "leha'azin oznahh"? If a woman is in the room and her mind wanders... So she heard every word whether she happened to pay attention aside, was she yotzeit? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 12:24:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [TorahMusings] Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else Message-ID: <20180228202441.GG27309@aishdas.org> >From Torah Musings. https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/receiving-credit-card-benefit-purchase-someone-else/ I has starting reading this wondering about both ribis and whether it was fair to the credit card company or taking advantage of a flaw in the contract. RDN addresses the former by a particular approach to the company's motives. Purim alegra y dulce! -micha Receiving Credit Card Benefit on Purchase for Someone Else by R. Daniel Mann Question: Reuven paid for Shimon's plane ticket using his credit card and was to be reimbursed. Is it considered that Reuven lent money to Shimon, so that if Reuven receives more than he gave because of credit card points he earned, it is ribbit (forbidden usury)? Also, who deserves to get the points, i.e., should Reuven credit Shimon for his gain? Answer: When Reuven gave money to the airlines via his credit card based on Simon's request, it is indeed considered as if he lent money to Shimon. This is based on a broad concept known as arvut (guarantorship). By means of arvut, the one who becomes obligated is not the one who received the money (the airline) but the one who requested the money to reach the party he specified (Shimon) (Kiddushin 7a). This concept can be used in creating loan obligations, kiddushin, and transactions. Thus, if Shimon would refuse to pay Reuven back because Reuven did not directly give him anything, we would say "Are you kidding?! When asking Reuven to pay the airlines, you said (or implied) you would pay Shimon back." Now that we have determined that Reuven has, effectively and halachically, lent money to Shimon, the question is whether Reuven can receive benefit as a result of the transaction. Indeed, ribbit is not only when a lender receives money straight from the hand of the borrower. If, for example, the borrower wanted to give the interest to the lender by means of a shaliach (agent), it would also be forbidden. However, the problem is only if the benefit that Reuven receives is, in some way, coming from Shimon (Bava Metzia 69b). This case is different because of the nature of the benefit the credit card company gives Reuven. Because credit card companies benefit when their card is used more times/for larger sums of money, they sometimes give incentives to cardholders to use their card as much as possible. The company, thus, gives benefit to the cardholder, i.e., because Reuven decided to use their credit card; they are certainly not doing it at Shimon's behest. Therefore, there is no problem of ribbit. Is Reuven, though, required to give or share the gain with Shimon, and, then, if Shimon waived his rights, would that waiver not be considered ribbit? The gemara (Ketubot 98b) asks about a case in which someone serves as an agent to buy a certain amount of a commodity for a buyer for a certain price, and the seller decides to give more commodity than was requested. The gemara says that if the object does not have a set price, we say that the buyer's money ended up bringing him more than expected. If, though, there was a set price, we view the extra as a present. Who receives the present? The gemara accepts the opinion that it is divided equally between the buyer and the agent. Rashi explains that this is because there is a doubt for whom the present was intended. Based on this, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) says that if the seller specified that he added on for the agent, the agent keeps the whole surplus. The Rif (Ketubot 57b of his pages) says that even assuming the agent was the intended recipient, the buyer deserves a share because the benefit came through him. The Beit Yosef prefers the Rif's opinion, and the Shach (183:12) wonders why the Rama wrote according to Rashi as if it is agreed upon. One might have claimed that our case depends on the machloket of the Rif, Rashi et al., as Reuven got the benefit because of Shimon's purchase. However, in this case, Shimon is less directly involved with the credit card company than the gemara's seller is to the buyer. Also, the "present" is part of an ongoing deal between company and client (Reuven), to which Shimon is not a party. The Rashba (Meyuchas L'Ramban 60; see K'tzot Hachoshen 283:7) says that when the present is because of the agent's relationship with the seller, the agent receives the whole benefit. In summary, based on your description, Reuven need not credit Shimon for the points benefit, and there is no problem of ribbit. 2018-02-28 About Daniel Mann This column is produced on behalf of Eretz Hemdah by Rabbi Daniel Mann. Rabbi Mann is a Dayan for Eretz Hemdah and a staff member of Yeshiva University's Gruss Kollel in Israel. He is a senior member of the Eretz Hemdah responder staff, editor of Hemdat Yamim and the author of Living the Halachic Process, volumes 1 and 2 and A Glimpse of Greatness. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:30:40 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:30:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Defending Traditional Practices In-Reply-To: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <8fce0fe91df1491f9631c6a11b81cc33@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180228213040.GA3744@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:07:41AM +0000, Rich, Joel wrote: : Shut Beit Efraim (O"C 6) [R'Efram Zalman Margaliyot - 1762-1828) strongly : defends the Ashkenazy practice of not duchening except on the Shalosh : Regalim. If you are looking for a spirited defense of traditional : practices, even ones that we can't really easily explain how they are : supported by the halachic process( a traditional Avodah topic), this is : a good tshuva to read! So, kayadua, the AhS will get quite creative in trying to figure out how accepted practices passed the "peer review" of generations of rabbis. Basically, how to textually justify the mimetic . Reaching shemitas kesafim (CM 67) is a notable exception. In se'if 1 he lists possible outs to allow a loan beyond shemittah w/out pruzbul. He notes that today it's derabbanan, and practiced by the amoraim and the posqim agree, "but we see that even in the early generations, the world were not careful in it, as the Rosh writes in a teshuvah, and our rabbis put in effort to find a reason for it". Yest, he concludes that the reasons are weak, "vehayarei es devar Hashem yinhog beshemitas kesafim" (yinhog?), and after all, it's only pruzbul, not a major sacrifice. Many places are careful in it even today. And then gives you the prior and next shemitah yar acording to the chashbon of the Rambam, the geonim, and chakhmei EY. In se'if 1 he lists the Y-mi which says about terumos uma'aseros that the law passed to observe them in chu"l was only lands adjacent to EY, or that shemitas kesafim derabbanan was only enacted iwhen a BD of musmachim were beqadeish the shemitah. In se'if 6 he discusses the idea that since a person can make any finanacial obligation on himself, he can obligate himself after shemitah as well. As long as it's not worded as a tenai al mah shekasuv baTorah. And there is also a rule that anything that is convention to be included in the contract is assumed even if not written in. We just assume it's a scribal error, taken too for granted. Combine the two, (end of the se'if) and in a place where everyone ignore shemitas kesafim we can assume the loveh accepted such an obligation on himself. And in se'if 10 he discusses Hillel's standardization of pruzbul. "Ein kosevim pruzbul ela al loveh sheyeish lo qarqa." With galus, fewer and fewer lovim have qarqa. These aren't the days of settlement in Bavel and EY. It got to a point where Hillel's original concern, that the poor would be unable to get loans, would not be addressed even with pruzbul! And therefore, vadai nidchis tanqanta derabbanan. And then again , he tells us not to rely on these arguments -- ubevadai hu lemidas zekhus al Kelal Yisrael. And again "yarei es devar H'" would make a pruzbul as they do in many places. The possible reason for this exception? "Vekhakhah nohagim bekhol medinas Lita" -- his primary audience lives in one of those "harbei meqomos"! So, we know the AhS will work hard to justify a minhag Yisrael even when it's someone else's minhag. And then work to minimize his audience from taking it as a new-for-them leniency. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From micha at aishdas.org Wed Feb 28 13:35:26 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Heter Iska and "The Howey Rule" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180228213526.GB3744@aishdas.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58:36AM -0500, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote: : For professional reasons, I have been researching "The Howey Rule" and its : applications. : : In short (tl;dr) the Howey Rule was the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court : decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_v._W._J._Howey_Co.) defining a : "security" and how it differs from a "commodity". Learning about loans in AhS yomi, I realized something. The word piqadon is used both for collateral and for an investment. Relevant? Purim alegra y dulce! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Feb 28 20:58:13 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 06:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Last night's reading Message-ID: <7767aec5-ab20-faaa-5800-8e0c2c764bd0@zahav.net.il> Interesting Megillah reading. I ended up going to a Yemenite beit knesset and they did things a bit differently. 1) They served refreshments right after Maariv and before the megillah reading. 2) The men and women's sections are separated by a short wall and a curtain on top of the wall. During the reading, the curtain was open, something which isn't done during regular tefilla. 3) What they said before and after the megillah reading wasn't what is said in an Ashkenazi shul (I have no idea what they said). 4) The person reading the megillah used a microphone. After coming home, I double checked Rav Moshe and Rav Melamed and both of them totally oppose using a microphone. (I ended up going to another reading later that evening. ) 5) Unlike the Yeminite place that I got to know in Efrat, at this beit knesset they make noise when Haman's name comes up. From michaelpoppers at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:31:55 2018 From: michaelpoppers at gmail.com (Michael Poppers) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:31:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala Message-ID: As we know, there are parallels between Kiddush and Havdala. On the subject of *b'samim* at Havdala, consider the *minhag* of *b'samim* prior to Kiddush (e.g. see here: http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2010/10/minhag-of- smelling-spices-and-hadasim.html ). ? *?leahciM* morf tseb eht lla dna *!miruP tuG* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 17:19:05 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Commemorative Fast Days Message-ID: It is common knowledge that crying is generally a sign of great sadness. It is equally well-known, I think, that occasionally, crying can also signify other extreme emotions, including extreme happiness. I suspect that fasting is similar. We usually fast as a sign of affliction, to spur us to do teshuva. But sometimes, fasting can be a tool for other purposes. For example, this is what The Book Of Our Heritage (written by Eliyahu Kitov, translated by Rav Nachman Bulman) writes in Vol 2 pg 205: "The fast of the first born on the fourteenth of Nisan is a reminder of the fact that the firstborn of Israel humbled themselves before G-d and accepted the yoke of G-d's Sovereignty. The abstention from food and drink, is a sign of a heart subdued before G-d." It is interesting to note that if a firstborn did not attend a seudas mitzva, and actually fast on that day, then he would include Anenu at mincha. (So says MB 470:2, about 5 lines from the end.) My question concerns the whole paragraph of Anenu in general, but most particularly the phrase "kee v'tzara gedolah anachnu - for we are in big trouble". Exactly which tzara are the bechorim referring to when/if they say this? I can easily understand saying Anenu on other fast days, because even "if" there is no immediate crisis (I put "if" in quotes because one could argue that we DO live in a crisis), there is still the tzara of being in galus, and we daven for that with particular fervor on the fast days. But I don't see that as relevant to Erev Pesach, or at least, no more relevant than on any other regular non-taanis day of the year. Actually, I thought of this question yesterday, at mincha on Taanis Esther. My understanding is that, like Taanis Bechorim, this fast is also "merely" a remembrance, and not for any current tzara. At least, that's my vague recollection of Taanis Esther. But I can't point to any sources, and that's why this post focuses on Taanis Bechorim. But if anyone can offer ideas, I'd be grateful. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 18:53:55 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 21:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Missing Hearing a Word of the Megillah Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > The phrasing in the AhS (OC 690:12) is "lishmoa milah > bemilah". The MB is even more explicit "vetzarikh hashomeia' > leha'azin ozno velishmoa kol teiva veteiva". RMB asked some good questions based on the verbs used here. My question relates to the *nouns*. We are taught the importance of hearing every single *word*. Are the letters less critical? If I heard the word, but I missed a letter of it, am I yotzay? This is not an academic question. In my experience, it is not at all unusual for letters to be slurred, especially prefixes, and especially if the reader is trying to go fast. One side of me wants to say that if one misses a letter, then it is a different word, or maybe not even a real word at all, and therefore he *has* missed the word. The other side of me says that normal speech should suffice, and occasional slurring is normal in regular conversations, as long as the listener can grasp the intent of what is being said. Then my first side responds that "grasping the intent" is irrelevant because one does not need any understanding of the words to be yotzay, only that it be read correctly. Is anyone aware of any psakim on this? Thanks! Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 08:50:46 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 11:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." I understand that Hashem needed to show the New Moon to Moshe so that he would see and understand the proper shiur and such. I also understand that Moshe couldn't figure out what the Menorah should look like until Hashem showed him. But this case seems different. Why did Hashem have to show Moshe this coin? What did Moshe get from this vision that he couldn't figure out from the rest of that pasuk, "shekel hakodesh", "20 gerah", etc? It seems to me that the mitzva of Machatzis Hashekel either requires us to give a certain amount of money, or it requires us to give a certain coin. If it requires us to give a certain amount of money (as I've always understood, and I can provide sources if anyone asks) then this vision seems utterly superfluous. But if the mitzvah requires us to give a certain coin, and the pasuk has already explained the material and weight of the coin, then it must be that the purpose of the vision is to specify a particular design for that coin, in which case, we must have been minting specific Machtzis Hashekel Coins all the way from the days of the Mishkan through Bayis Sheni, and they were identical to the one that Hashem showed to Moshe. But I have never heard any description of what this coin looked like; has anyone else? Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? Thanks! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 3 19:23:17 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (cantorwolberg at cox.net) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Vayakhel, Pikudei Message-ID: [Vayakhel, email #1. -micha] The Torah states, "The men came with the women; everyone whose heart motivated (n'div leiv) him brought bracelets..." Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh explains that there is a difference between "n'div leiv -- motivated heart" which is a noun and "asher yidvenu leibo -- to give from the generosity of heart," which is a verb. "N'div leiv" is the essence of the person. One who is classified as "n'div leiv" is innately one with a generous heart. On the other hand, the one who is classified as "yidvenu leibo" is the one who performs an act of situational generosity. Had it not presented itself, it would not have happened. It does not genuinely reflect on the essence of the person. He simply was motivated at that moment to act generously. A perfect example of this is when one gives to a charity only when solicited. That is "yidvenu leibo". Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh continues that the one who is "n'div leiv" gives without consideration for his own needs or taking into account his own limitations. It is the equivalent of one who is classified by the Torah as "nisaoh leibo -- inspired heart." The inspiration of this individual is so consuming that his focus is solely on the cause -- ignoring his own needs. The Gemara in Tractate Chagigah cites a verse which states, "How beautiful are your steps, the daughter of the benefactor (bas nadiv)." The Jews are referred to as the "bas nadiv" because they are the descendants of Abraham, who selflessly gave his heart to God (n'div leiv). Abraham gave of himself without limitation. When one truly loves something, all that exists at that moment is the object of his love. Nothing else exists at that moment to interfere with his objective. All that mattered to Abraham was to fulfill the will of God. As a result of his selfless behavior, Abraham was referred to by God as "My beloved." His essence was "n'div leiv." The Gemara tells us that mercy, shame/conscience, and acts of kindness are characteristics that are inherent in the Jewish people. This is because they descend from Avraham who possessed these characteristics. The Jewish people are referred to as the "daughter of the benefactor -- bas n'div" (Abraham our Patriarch) because every Jew inherently has the potential to give of himself selflessly as Abraham had done. [Pikudei, email #2. -micha] Part of this portion goes into meticulous detail regarding the 'bigdei kehuna," (the clothing of the kohanim). The word "beged," in addition to meaning "garment" can also mean "betrayal" ("bagad" to deal treacherously and "b'gidah" treachery). What is this telling us? Clothing, garments or vestments like anything else used improperly is a betrayal to what's right. When the garments were used for holiness, they were "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments). This term "bigdei hakodesh" (holy vestments) appears in the Torah occasionally (Ex.39:1). Where do we ever hear of holy garments? Could you imagine going to Macy's and requesting a holy pair of jeans [they'd probably refer you to the Salvation Army]. The word "kadosh" (holy) can also have the opposite meaning. If the bigdei kehuna were properly utilized, then there was Kedusha in the most positive sense. But if not, it was a betrayal to HaShem and the kedusha reversed. Humility and knowledge in poor clothes excel pride and ignorance in costly attire. William Penn From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 12:10:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] [Divrei Chaim] Seeing the Inside Message-ID: <20180305201017.GA24507@aishdas.org> >From Divrei Chaim, a blog of divrei Torah by R' Chaim Brown (CC-ed; familiar name for our longer members) at . -micha Divrei Chaim Divrei Torah & assorted musings on life. Monday, February 26, 2018 seeing the inside Sometimes when you hear a shtickel torah you know right away who said it without being told. For example, when you hear 'tzvei dinim," you think R' Chaim, or at least someone following in the footsteps of Brisk. Even if I didn't tell you this pshat is from R' Tzvi Yehudah, I think you would immediately identify it as something only R' Kook (father or son) would say: The gemara at the end of Megillah writes that R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was asked, "Ba'meh he'erachta yamim?" in what merit did he live such a long life. He responded that the great merit he had is that he never once looked at the face of a rasha. R' Yehoshua ben Korcha was the son (according to some shitos) of R' Akiva, who was called "ka'reiach," the bald one (Bechorot 58). He grew up at a time of political ferment and rebellion -- remember that it was R' Akiva who championed Bar Kochba and encouraged the rebellion against Rome. Imagine R' Akiva, with his son Yehoshua, sitting in this armed camp, surrounded by tough soldiers who are preparing for war. Imagine the environment -- an army camp is not the beis medrash; these were not all lamed vuv tzadikim in the army of Bar Kochba. Years later, his colleagues came to the now old R' Yehoshua and asked: we don't understand it. You grew up surrounded by the "nationalists," surrounded by people fighting for independence, people interested in taking back the country, rough men of physical strength and courage, men who were not among the yoshvei beis medrash. How then were you zocheh to such a long life? How do you emerge from such an environment spiritually rich and rewarded by Hashem? R' Yehoshua ben Korcha answered: I never looked into the face of a rasha. You see rough men, fighting men, coarse men , resha'im-- but that's because you are only looking at the outside. When I looked, I only saw the inside -- the greatness of their holy neshomos. Is this not what Rav Kook, both father and son (whose yahrzeit is coming up), were all about? They knew how to look at Jews and not see the face of a rasha -- they knew how to see the inside. Posted by Chaim B. at 8:42 PM From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 5 12:20:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] RSRH on the Aegel Hazahav Message-ID: <1520281200666.46824@stevens.edu> The following is some of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 32:1. Note what he says about the role of an intermediary between man and G-D. YL 32 1. When the people saw that Moshe did not fulfill their expectation that he would come down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon, and they said to him: Arise, make us gods who shall go before us; for this man Moshe, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him. In their view, the eternal bond with God was not formed by the Divine Torah given to them through Moshe. The eternal guarantee of God's protection and of the intimacy with God attainable by each individual, without an intermediary, was not the Divine rules for life - i.e., the mishpatim- which would remain with them even when the temporary transmitter had departed. Rather, they considered the personality of Moshe, a man who was close to God, as the vital link in their connection with God. Only as long as he was alive could they be certain of God's protection. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. They believed that Moshe's relationship with God had been initiated not by God but by Moshe; hence, they reasoned, if Moshe was no longer alive they could, and indeed must, take some action on their own in order to force God's hand. They had not yet completely absorbed the Jewish conception that man has direct access to God, without the need for any intermediary, as long as he conducts himself in accordance with God's Will. Or perhaps the fear that henceforth they would have to wander through the wilderness without a leader to guide them caused them to doubt this truth. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 5 19:42:51 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash Message-ID: > We read yesterday about Machtzis Hashekel. On Ki Tisa 30:13, Rashi cites > the Midrash that Hashem showed Moshe a sort of fiery coin whose weight was > a half-shekel, and said, "They will give something like this." ... > Any thoughts? What did Moshe learn from this vision? > > Thanks! > Akiva Miller >From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned anything by being shown the coin. However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. What Moshe needed to see, what he didn't "get" from the rest of the pasuk, was that the coin H' showed to him was made of fire. Fire, ethereal, flickering, reaching upward is a very different "element" then metal, hewed from the depths of the earth. The physical does not repel the spiritual, but can work in harmony forming a unity, as represented by a coin made of fire. The L"R adds: "on a practical level, H' showed Moshe that even coarse human beings who are naturally driven by selfish motives, self love being their basic instinct, can also serve the Divine with the most noble of services as represented by the complete selflessness of fire." From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 09:02:01 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote: : From a halachic viewpoint, indeed, it's hard to see how Moshe learned : anything by being shown the coin. : : However, the L"R notes that what Moshe couldn't fully understand was : the potential of a full infusion between spirituality and materialism. ... Which fits the whole maaseh with Miryam and Aharon coming to Moshe about his neglect of his wife. Moshe's relationship to the ruchinus / gashmius synthesis was unlike that of Hashem's plan for the rest of humanity. And this is the kind of explanation a medrash should get. My instinct was a more balebatishe answer, but it only resolves the "peshat" in the medrash, not helping understand the iqar, the lesson... There was no terminology yet for metal purity. The only way to do machatzis hasheqel would be for Hashem to launch a mimetic tradition of what a pure enough silver coin looks like. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp, micha at aishdas.org And the Torah, its light. http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2 Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 09:24:08 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the mishkan, Moshe would have to understand what such a thing looked like, and make an example to explain it to the people. (Ditto for pidyon maaser sheni, but by then they'd already seen what a "coin" was.) Perhaps this was the invention of the coin, and it merely took another six centuries or so for the idea to catch on among the nations that this Jewish ritual object might have secular applications. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 6 11:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:36:13 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the : mishkan... Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From bdbradley70 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:51:22 2018 From: bdbradley70 at hotmail.com (Ben Bradley) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem Message-ID: I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far as I can discern. So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 6 21:38:18 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Machatzis Hashekel in the Mishkan / Mikdash In-Reply-To: <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> References: <20180306170201.GB7786@aishdas.org> <5ee161c8-f14a-5ff1-e0ec-34be8166174d@sero.name> <20180306193613.GC7786@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8dc6565a-03ac-7fe5-8331-4507f742b371@sero.name> On 06/03/18 14:36, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Even more balebatish: Coins hadn't yet been invented. Therefore > : Moshe had never seen one. *If* there is a requirement that the ten > : gerah of silver be minted into a coin before being given to the > : mishkan... > > Doesn't this depend on whether this medrash lives in the same timeline > in which Avraham coined medalions? (Matbia shel Avrahm Avinu: "zaqein > uzqeinah mitzad echad, ubachur uvsulah, mitzad acheir." - BQ 97b) One *could* accept that medrash and suppose that nobody copied Avraham's invention, so Moshe was unfamiliar with it. Perhaps even that Avraham thought of the concept so many centuries ahead of everyone else because he learned it from the Torah. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 10:09:07 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding Melacha on Shabbos Message-ID: <1520532524520.92246@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on two pesukim in Shemos. YL 35 1 Moshe had the whole community of the Children of Israel assemble,and he said to them: These are the objects which God commanded that they be made. 2 For six days shall [creating] work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a sanctity, a Sabbath to be observed for God by cessation from work; whoever performs [an act of creating] work on it shall be put to death. If we look for the common idea underlying all the other melachos [except hotza'ah], we find that they all show man's position as master of all things of the physical world. hotza'ah however, belongs strictly to the social sphere. The most complete picture of a full national life would be: the relation of the individual to society, and of society to the individual - i.e., what the individual does for the community, and what the community does for the individual - and the furthering of social causes in the social sphere. These are relations that come to clear expression in hotza'ah and chanacha from r'shus hayachid to r'shus harabim and from r'shus hayachid to r'shus Harabim, and in h'avrah daled amos b'r'shus harabim. Accordingly, if the isur of all the other melachos subordinates man to God as regards his position in the physical world, the isur of hotza'ah apparently expresses man's subordination to God as regards his position in the social world. The former is subordination to God in nature; the latter is subordination to God in history. Whereas the former places man's work in nature under the rule of the Creator, the latter places man's work in the state under the same rule. Just as the conception of our world comprises both nature and state, the conception of God's sovereignty over the world includes His direction and command of nature and history. God's kingdom on earth, which man is to build up by keeping Shabbos, will be complete and real, only if man subordinates himself to God's Will in both his natural life and his national life. Now we see that the two facts that the Torah mentions as reasons for the mitzvah of Shabbos - b'rias shamayim v'aretz andy'tzoias mitzryim - complement each other in their essential meaning. The creation of the world attests to the Creator's sovereignty in nature, and this is expressed on Shabbos by all the other m'lachos. The exodus from Egypt attests to the Creator's sovereignty in the lives of nations, and this is expressed on Shabbos by the isur hotzaah. The isur hotzaah, then, places the Jewish state, the individual Jew's activities on behalf of the community, the community's activities on behalf of the individual, as well as the activities of the rulers of the state, under the sovereignty of the Creator, Who demands obedience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 8 13:44:43 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:44:43 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Cholent Challenge Message-ID: <1520545459177.28669@stevens.edu> It is a pasuk in one of this week's Parasha, Veyakhel, that we have to [give] thank[s] for the main event of our weekly Shabbos repast...Cholent! Please see the article at https://goo.gl/vE37Rs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:04:00 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:04:00 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? Message-ID: In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it was "katuv biyur chochamim." (It was already written by the sages) but otherwise would have not allowed any additional branches. The commentators then provide a logic for the Rambam's allowance differentiating between hadassim and aravot based on things like beauty . . . so I asked R'Bednarsh how once can project an underlying logic when the Rambam himself says he was forced by precedent. IIUC his response was that while the Rambam was forced to the conclusion by precedent he would've worked out a supporting logic (this is what's always done). And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Fri Mar 9 09:39:22 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:39:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hagba Message-ID: when I was learning hilchot hagbaat hatora with my chavrusa (O"C 134 - mb8) he discusses how many columns to open the torah. kach mkublani mbeit avi abba-even if you're 6'5" with a large wingspan, only do a 3-column hagbah (it's not a contest and it's not about you! Others argue that it is a hiddur. My take is it depends on where and when-what do the others around you think as well as what are your motivations? On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 12 01:52:59 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 22 The men came, along with the women, all, moved by their hearts: they brought brooches, nose-rings, rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and everyone who had assigned an offering of gold to G-d. The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. The altar of the Torah was erected not on the verdant Mount Gerizim, but on the desolate Mount Eival (see Commentary, Bereshis 12:6-7). So, too, in general, the Sanctuary of the Torah presupposes the concrete reality of human earthly existence. The Sanctuary is directly connected with this reality, and is to be actualized, without separation, in the reality of life. For the highest goal and highest holiness is basically just that purpose and that actualization for which man was created in his earthliness and physical life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 12 20:48:14 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 05:48:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] pressuring witnesses Message-ID: Anyone who watched Shababnikim saw the episode in which the police investigator threatened to reveal to a web site embarrassing information about a yeshiva bachur if the bachur didn't provide the detective with information about a crime. According to Halacha is this technique kosher? Would shotrim working in the framework of a Sanhedrin be allowed to use it? Does it matter what the crime was (in this case it was arson)? Ben From hankman at bell.net Tue Mar 13 16:06:22 2018 From: hankman at bell.net (hankman) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem Message-ID: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done on Shmini Atzeret. The common reason given for not doing Geshem on the 1st day of yomtov is that we delay the reference to rain until after we have completed the mitzvoh of Succah. I wonder if there may also be an astronomical reason as well. Since the earth?s orbit is elliptical and the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that the ?half year? from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, is about 7-8 days longer than the ?half year? from the fall equinox through the winter back to the spring equinox. Thus it would make sense that Geshem would be delayed by the week of yomtov while Tal would not be. Of course the Rambam?s constant length for the tekuphot is an average number ? the same for all of them. Does anyone offer this reasoning? Kol tuv Chaim Manaster --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 10:10:51 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:10:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Interval between Tal and Geshem In-Reply-To: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> References: <1D5975865A8E4784BABFF5835995A194@hankPC> Message-ID: <20180314171051.GC15004@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:06:22PM -0500, hankman via Avodah wrote: : Tephilas Tal is done on the 1st day of Pessach while Geshem is done : on Shmini Atzeret... I wonder if there may also be an : astronomical reason as well. Since the earth's orbit is elliptical and : the velocity of the planet varies with the season. The result is that : the "half year" from spring equinox through summer to the fall equinox, : is about 7-8 days longer than the "half year" from the fall equinox : through the winter back to the spring equinox... Brilliant! A problem is, our tefillos aren't even as precise as our years. We use Tequfas Shemu'el for davening (at least for Birkhas haShanim in chu"l and for Birkhs haChamah), and Tequfas R' Adda for calendar calculations. You are assuming more precision than we see evidenced as a goal for chazal. OTOH, if the precision doesn't add to the complexity of implementation, why not? We generally use Tequfas Shemi'el for davening because a simple 365-1/4 day year can be implemented by the masses. Whereas we only need the Sanhedrin (or their proxy, but still not everyone) to be capable of making the calendar. This rule, based on Jewish calendar dates, is easy to implement AND more accurate. So perhaps. Well, more accurate on average. We're talking about 7-8 days in contrast to the 11 day average slippage of a regular year, or the 22+ days of a me'uberes. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/Books/Syntaxis/Almagest/node36.html spells out your application of Keppler's Law and concludes: > ... Thus, the length of spring is 92.8 days, the length of summer 93.6 > days, and the length of autumn 89.9 days. Finally, the length of winter is > the length of the tropical year (i.e., the time period between successive > vernal equinoxes), which is 360/0.98564735 = 325.24 days, minus the > sum of the lengths of the other three seasons. This gives 88.9 days. Adding Spring and Summer, we get 186.4 days for the dry season, and similar addition yields 178.8 days for the rainy one. A difference of 7.6 days, as stated. However, Mar 21 to Sep 21 is only 3 more days than Sep 21 to Mar 21. Which is why I was looking at the math. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:00:02 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: The Mishna Brurah (O"C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested me - Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l'beit haknesset (a chatan should not go to shul)-in order not to deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Wed Mar 14 13:01:04 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:01:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara Message-ID: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 14 13:32:56 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:32:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Big Bang and Boltzmann Brains Message-ID: <20180314203256.GA29592@aishdas.org> By definition, low entroy states are unlikely. The idea that the Big Bang started all of the visible universe off in a low entropy state is a less likely theory than one of us being a Boltzmann Brain. A Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It thinks there is a universe and a personal history, that it has a body etc... But the perceptions are disconnected from everything outside it. ("The Matrix", or "Brain in a Vat", or Bishop Berkley's ontology, in which we can't know whether we really sense the world around us, or just collect sensations.) In other words, it is actually less likely that there is a universe of the sort we think we live in than that you are a cloud of atoms that coincidentally move around to think it is a person living on a planet within a universe. Just look at the particles involved in each case, the number of possible arrangements, and the number of arrangements that have the desired properties. That assertion is mathematically provable. (And discussed enough for "Boltzmann Brain" to be a buzzword.) And then was the scramble to defuse the bomb. See this article. Of course, asserting that the initial entropy of the universe wasn't random -- or redefining "random" to include H's hashgachah -- would also solve the problem. Occam's Razor, or a variant thereof that includes probability theory, is strongly on the side of a Creator. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When one truly looks at everyone's good side, micha at aishdas.org others come to love him very naturally, and http://www.aishdas.org he does not need even a speck of flattery. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi AY Kook From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 15 11:28:25 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:28:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. I don't know how that would work in practice, but it was interesting to see someone actually say that you have to have some connection to the ba'al simcha. On 3/14/2018 10:00 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > The Mishna Brurah (O?C 131:26) contains a psak that always interested > me ? Tov lizaher shelo yichnas hachatan l?beit haknesset (a chatan > should not go to shul)?in order not to deprive the minyan of the > opportunity to say tachanun. The piskei tshuvot (O?C 13:23) takes > issue but the Chashukei Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related > question which goes to a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether > one who has the choice of going to two minyanim can choose to go to > the one where a chatan is davening in order to skip tachanun. His > response is if he is going for that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s > running from a mitzvah), but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or > for the midat harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back > to my favorite question?OK, but what does HKB?H want of me?] > KT From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:36:13 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Besamim and Havdala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315163613.GF4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 07:47:11AM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. Many years ago I learned Rama 299:10, which distinguishes : between a "melacha gemura" and other melachos... He makes a nafqa mina lemaaseh between them, but left me guessing what their definitions are. The Rama's examples of "other melakhos" are hadlaqas haneir and hotza'ah meireshus lirshus. Okay, hotza'ah has a long history of being labeled a melakhah garu'ah. But what makes havarah less of a malakhah gemura than any other? (The end of that Rama talks about a minhag he never saw of drawing water motza"sh, when the Be'eir Miyam is "soveiv ... kol habe'eiros". And anyone who is "pogeia' bo veyishteh mimenu" will be healed from all their illnesses. It had me wondering how long I would need to leave the tap on in order to get all of the water already out of the be'eir out of my pipes, so that I would get such water. Then I wondered if any Passaic's water is artesianal anyway.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:14:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315191428.GL4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:00:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : ... The piskei tshuvot (O"C 13:23) takes issue but the Chashukei : Chemed (Yoma S2:) has an insight on a related question which goes to : a somewhat broader issue. He was asked whether one who has the choice : of going to two minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan : is davening in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going : for that reason it's not appropriate (he's running from a mitzvah), : but if he's going to be part of the simcha or for the midat harachamim : (the attribute of mercy) it's permitted [back to my favorite question-OK, : but what does HKB"H want of me?] In other words: Echad hamarbeh, ve'echad hamam'it, ubilvad sheyikhavein libo lashamayim. Running to be mistateif in the simchah is a mam'it shekivein libo lashamayim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 08:54:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> References: <1520844749355.65012@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180315155416.GE4294@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 08:52:59AM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is part of RSRH's commentary on Shemos 35 ... :> The underlying truth of the realm of holiness in Israel is that this :> realm is not superhuman, towering above and negating ordinary life :> and its conditions. On the contrary, the altar must be erected on the :> earth itself, with nothing intervening between the altar and the earth. Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. The canonical source is his comment on Shemos 19:13, constrasting Har Sinai being holy during an event, and Har haBayis. The latter was human consecrated. Divine Revelation is a holy event, but no person consecrated the mountain for avodas Hashem. But even "umiqdashi tira'u" (Vayiqra 19:30) gets a comment quoting Yavamos 6b, "Not of the miqdash should you have yir'ah, but from He Who commanded about the miqdash." A consecrated item isn't an ontology. As I wrote here in 2009 > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human > activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object. > E.g. his explanation of cheit ha'eigel as being based in the error > that Benei Yisrael thought Moshe's qedushah was intrinstic. And > the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that even something > carved by HQBH Himself has no qedushah if not a focus of avodah. See > http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/modern/20modern.htm for R' Elyakim > Krumbein's longer discussion with numerous examples. See also MC on Bamidbar 3:45 -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:57:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:57:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hagba In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315165741.GH4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:39:22PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : On a related note, Does anyone else feel some folks focus on the length : of the tekiah gedolah takes away from the mitzvah? I thought the whole point of having a makri is to dump the job of making sure the maaseh mitzvah is fulfilled on one person, so that everyone else is freed up to be moved by the shofar. Otherwise, why would we need to appoint someone to keep the toqeia' in sequence? If he messes up, anyone from the minyan can "Nu! Shevarim!" So, if timing the teqi'os against the (eg) shevarim-teru'ah between them is something the minyan is maqpid about, shouldn't that timing be dumped on the maqri as well? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:11:33 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lashon hara In-Reply-To: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <74694e523d084b5fa9742d54b70cc707@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20180315191133.GK4294@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 08:01:04PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : My comment to a Lashon Hara Shiur-Your thoughts? : I pretty much agree with what you said in your shiur. I would simply add : that most of the standard shiurim (an area that I actually have expertise : :-)) usually end not just with the seven item checklist but saying that : most situations are complex and that you must consult with rabbinic : authority. This to me has always seemed a real punt as in real life you : can't consult all the time. The key in my humble opinion is to develop a : sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. Maybe the typical speaker believes he chose a topic interesting enough to speak about because it has complexities that people shouldnt be fielding on their own, without consulting their own poseiq. So its not a matter of in real life you cant consult all the time because most of the time they arent shiur-worthy questions. As for your solution: to develop a sense that allows one to function in the real world based on role models. I think that marks you as basically a mimeticist doing whats right by copying rather than studying in the abstract. Although only basically because of the conscious choice of who is a roll model. I know (from the response to the above comment when posted on Torah Musings) that > ... these halachot create a type of fuzzy logic system that just > studying the rules is insufficient to get a true sense of how to weight > conflicting priorities and require someone to learn how to fish rather > than continually coming back for a piece Yes, when things are no sufficiently algoritmic to be able to decide from study alone, one needs shimush and immersion in the culture. This is what mimeticism does best -- the non FORMal education. But I think it's unfair to expect someone giving a shiur who is neither the audience's primary rav or rebbe to teach them how to fish. It's a one-shot discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 09:49:20 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:59:50PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : B"H these rabbanim disagree. Having unity of thought would (amongst : other things) make the Torah quite boring. The differences make it : quite fun (amongst other things). I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get old. Which is something other than the personal way they need to be established (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on approach to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in chinukh should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement they will end up gravitating toward. And as I've noted a few times on Areivim, without spelling out the above justification for invoking "al pi darko", much of the OTD rate is due to the height of the walls we have between O communities. So one kid leaves what feels to him like a compromised, watered down, Judaism, and perhaps had his MO parents would have considered a yeshivish option, they would have stayed observant yerei E-lokim. Or the kid unimpressed with legalism, who would have used more of chassidus's expriential style. Or the chareidi youngster who left because he felt sufficated and force into a role he wasn't made for, perhaps MO would have been a better fit. Unity of thought stam doesn't work. This is why we talk not only of 70 panim laTorah but even 60 ribo osios. Every home (Bamidbar's counts are of 600k potential householders, but maybe it means every individual) has its own derekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every child comes with the message micha at aishdas.org that God is not yet discouraged with http://www.aishdas.org humanity. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 12:04:07 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chilul Hashem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315190407.GJ4294@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:51:22PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote: : I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in : hilchos chilul hashem. Tangent: The expression "chilul hasheim" (ChS) is older than referring to G-d as "Hashem". And besides, the notion of desecrating the Unchangable One makes no sense. The term is intended to be "desecration of the name/reputation" of G-d, which is why I spell it "hasheim" and not "Hashem". : The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and : interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the : pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love : Hashem'. Conversely [ch"v]... Notice the gemara doesn't limit this to a person who is "gadol baTorah umeforsim bachasidus", to quote the Rambam you cite, Yesodei haTorah 5:11. For that matter, among the examples of behaviors the gemara lists as something that has people associate his behavior with sheim Hashem and Torah is "umeshameish TC" -- we're talking about students! Working just from the gemara, any visibly O Jew should assume that non-O Jews and non-Jews (and many O Jews as well) will similarly judge Devar H' by their actions. Within that, there will obviously be a matter of degree. If you are a known gadol baTorah, then the coupling in peole's minds is tighter than if you are studying with or apprenticing under a TC, and of course the one trying to become a TC more than the rest of us. And so Rav, and R' Yochanan each explains what the demands are of someone with a reputation "kegon ana". R Nachman Bar Yitzchaq gives the example, "that people say 'May his Master forgive Plonia.'" Nothing about "like me", just anyone who causes people to say this. > Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is > known for his Torah learning'. The only occurance of "adam chashuv" in Rashi on that sugya is "keshe-..." in d"h "be'emor lahem am H' eileh" (on the gemara's quote of Yechezqeil 36:20). No mention of being known for Torah learning, although the rest of the paragraph in the gemara does. And, interestingly, Rashi doesn't only talk about the adam chashuv sinning, but that he sins and pur'anos come on him, and everyone says "what did it benefit him". I would have thought the ChS was that the Torah and frumkeit didn't produce better people, and that's what the Rambam talks about as well, Rashi seems to be saying the ChS is that people will think he deserves a better fate than he's getting, and the problem of theodicy is the ChS. He gets this from the use of the pasuq, which talks about nakhrim that the Jews are exiled among saying "am Hashem eileh?!" and (Rashi adds) Hashem couldn't save them? (Yechezqil continues "umei'atzo yatz'u".) So, Rashi speaks of two examples, the Adam chashuv and national. It would seem they are indeed examples, and the logic stated by the gemara would apply to a lesser extent to any observant individual. The question remains why the Rambam speaks in terms of gedolim, without giving other examples to imply it's not ONLY of gedolim. Without the Rambam, things point to gedolim having to be more careful, but each person has to watch their middos and appearances proportional to how much people identify them with Torah observance. Among the Rambam's list in 5:11 is "sheyirbeh bischoq" (being overly silly?). Kesef Mishnah (ad loc) sources R' Yehudah in the mishnah (Demai pereq 2) who says that someone who accepts chaveirus should also accept not to be overly silly (shelo yarbeh bischoq). And the KM says that when the Chakhamim disagree, that's only that being trusted on maaser isn't a level where this appearance issue would be a ChS. But the chakhamim would agree that a TC shouldn't. Thus the Rambam. So it would seem that the KM doesn't take the Rambam's discussing only an "adam gadol baTorah umfusam bachasidus" to mean the issue only applies to gedolim. Just that gedolim have to be very very careful. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 10:32:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : In Sh'ut Ha Rambam (313) he allows only additional hadassim to be used : (but) no additional lulavim, aravot or etrogim). He allows it because it : was "katuv biyur chochamim."... Well, lulav and esrog are written belashon yachid. The question is why "arvei nachal" is darshened that a 2 word description implies *exactly* two aravos, whereas "anaf eitz eivos" is darshened -- 3 words imply *at least* 3 hadasim. If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. But if you look at ones stamped during the First Rebellion (the sunset years of Bayis Sheini), or found in Egypt made during the Kytos Wars (between the two), we find a lulav surrounded by a whole bunch of berry-bearing branches. Eg http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28002 or http://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=29709 Presumably, the numerous hadasim. But two esrogim? And the beries are still on the hadasim??? Maybe a sectarian coinage; the Tzeduqim held the political power in those days, no? In which case, can't be used to prove anything halachic. : And if tradition had been to allow additional aravot and not hadassim he : would've come up with a logic, too. Interesting-when do we project a logic : and when do we say we just don't understand and thus don't extrapolate? I don't think this is evidence of projecting a logic onto an existing pesaq in order to derive halakhos for new cases. Which is what extrapolation means to me. I see standing by existing pesaq, and giving a post-facto rationalization for something that felt like it needs one. Like lomdus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 15 12:35:15 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:35:15 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79edcc0db5684a19beb469a2ae8ca9d7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. ================================= interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 15 12:52:45 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:52:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> On 15/03/18 13:32, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If you look at tetradrachm coins restamped by Bar Kokhva's followers, > you will find the reverse has one esrog, one lulav, one hadas, one > arava. I have mentioned this before -- this is shitas R' Aqiva. And > so finding it on BK coinage captures my fancy. And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 15 13:57:36 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] taamei halacha? In-Reply-To: <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> References: <20180315173211.GI4294@aishdas.org> <58433a7a-e565-db49-20ee-356287187542@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180315205736.GT4294@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : And as I've replied before, to your eyes it looks like one of each, : with a basket holder. To my eyes it looks like two aravos surrounded : by a large number of hadassim, tied together with two thin bindings. ... and as /I've/ replied before, that description isn't mine, it's how I saw the coins after being prejudiced about what to expect, including by people who have handled the coins themselves. Eg, the Temple Mount Sifting Project (after I posted previous times): http://tmsifting.org/en/2016/10/13/symbols-of-sukkot-feast-of-tabernacles Other exampoles: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D#/media/File:Coin22.jpg http://shalem.ac.il/content-channel/bar-kochba-and-zionism/ http://www.hatanakh.com/en/node/29282 IOW, not my chiddush. RAZZ at https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-truth-arba-minim fn 2 seems to agree with you. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 16 02:10:55 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (WITZCHOK LEVINE) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 05:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1c225977.20c56.1622e138b8d.Webtop.48@optonline.net> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I used to think that "chanokh lenaar al pi darko" referred to students > having different learning styles. However, ont of the chevrah pointed > out that that doesn't fit the seifa of the pasuq (Mishlei 22:6): > "... qam ki yazqin, lo yasur mimenahh" (mapiq hei). So, this "derekh" > is something we don't want this person to leave even when they get > old. > > Which is something other than the personal way they need to be > established > (/ch-n-kh/) to begin with. Important point, but not our pasuq's. > > It seems the pasuq is saying that your child should be taught on > approach > to Torah that works for them, EVEN IF IT IS NOT YOURS. Our goal in > chinukh > should be to produce ovedei Hashem, regardless of which O submovement > they will end up gravitating toward. > ?Please see RSRH's essay?Chanoch L'na'ar Al Pi Darko (Collected Writings VII) at?https://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chanoch_l_naar_al_pi_darco.pdf? YL From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:16:10 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel Message-ID: . R' Micha Berger wrote: > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. > > Qedushah is only inherent to Hashem. People can make things > qadosh when they dedicate them to avodas Hashem. ... > As I wrote here in 2009 > > According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from > human activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy > place or object. I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious one would be Shabbos. I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to *become* qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by Hashem, not only humans. Akiva Miller From akivagmiller at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:05:04 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . R' Joel Rich wrote: > He was asked whether one who has the choice of going to two > minyanim can choose to go to the one where a chatan is davening > in order to skip tachanun. His response is if he is going for > that reason it?s not appropriate (he?s running from a mitzvah), > but if he?s going to be part of the simcha or for the midat > harachamim (the attribute of mercy) it?s permitted [back to my > favorite question ? OK, but what does HKB"H want of me?] Here's my answer to that last question: HKB"H wants us to be honest. What is right for one person is wrong for another, or even for that same person at a different time or under different circumstances. If he genuinely feels the simcha, then he should not be saying tachanun, but if he is fooling himself into a mistaken belief that he feels the simcha, then he *should* be saying tachanun. R' Ben Waxman wrote: > A few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul > was quite large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating > in a small community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it > makes complete sense that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't > say tachanun. However, in this shul, in which strangers pray > there every day and even not all the members know everyone, the > presence of a chatan doesn't really add to their simcha. That > being the case, visitors to the shul should say tachanun, even > if the congregation doesn't. I am truly happy to hear of a rav that has so much seichel. It upsets me time after time, when I am at a minyan in my own community, and we skip tachanun, and I have to ask several people until I find one who knows which simcha had occurred. I think it would be wonderful to establish a practice of someone getting up after Chazaras Hashatz, and announcing that, "In celebration of XYZ, we are skipping tachanun," and THEN go to kaddish. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:33:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> More on respecting others' minhagim. RGStudent posted the following on FB last night https://www.facebook.com/gil.student/posts/10156405636438738 A Sephardic Jew mocked Chad Gadya, which Ashkenazim recite at the Passover Seder. A fellow Sephardic Jew considered this sacrilegious and placed him in excommunication (niduy). The great Sephardic sage the Chida, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulay (d. 1806), was asked whether this excommunication was appropriate. He responded (Chaim Sha'al 1:28) that yes, it is sacrilegious to mock a text that thousands of Jews (even Ashkenazim) -- among them holy scholars -- recite. The cited Chida is at http://bit.ly/2pgO4xq , which is on a Facebook owned fbcdn.net server. -Micha -- Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy' micha at aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.' http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 16 03:44:04 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:44:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180316104404.GH13574@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:16:10PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: : > Addressing the first clause, the Meshekh Chokhmah repeatedly : > explains that qedushah of an item or location is never inherent; : > it is always the consequence of a person embuing it. ... : I can think of a couple of challenges to this idea. The most obvious : one would be Shabbos. Or, that his logic has to do with items and locations, not time. Har Sinai was qadosh during the time of ma'amad Har Sinai, because of being in the midst of hosting the event itself. RMShKmD's point is that it didn't as an object/location become qadosh to retain that qedushah afterward. Shabbos also hosts an event, or at least is an opportunity to do so. What I would like to see is how the Or Samayeiach, the author's halachic work, deals with discussion of Yom Kipput and itzumo shel yom mechaperes. There the "or at least is an opportunity to do so" is open to question. Pashut peshat is that the day itself had power. (Unlike what he says even the miqdash.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 17 10:33:01 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:33:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The Besht In-Reply-To: <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> References: <8B.52.03148.AF3AA8A5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180315164920.GG4294@aishdas.org> <20180316103317.GA13574@aishdas.org> <79ca22b6.218c1.1622f9cb370.Webtop.37@optonline.net> Message-ID: <67fbc9b4-ff6b-044a-298f-4af8f5f52935@zahav.net.il> Your saying it or not saying it is irrelevant to the Chida's psak, which frankly you seem to be ignoring. Ben On 3/16/2018 6:20 PM, WITZCHOK LEVINE wrote: > I have news for you.? Not all Ashkenazim say Chad Gadya.? If I am > tired and it is getting late, I do not say it.? Of course I start > davening at 7:15 on the first days of Pesach. I feel it is more > important to get up early for davening than to keep the Seder going > too long after Chatzos. > > > ?I guess those who daven at 9 can stay up and say it! From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sun Mar 18 13:28:41 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:28:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael during Shmittah has kedushah. Halacha puts numerous restrictions on what you can do with those apples. It matters not if anyone actually did anything to help the tree grow. Ben On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* > qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by > Hashem, not only humans. From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sat Mar 17 17:58:38 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:58:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94__In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_Nature?= Message-ID: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> 1) Ex.6:6 "Aish tamid tukad al haMizbeach lo tichbeh"- "a permanent flame shall remain on the altar; It shall not be extinguished." Rambam indicates that this is a positive commandment for a fire to be continuously burning on the altar, including Shabbat. Even though fire would descend from the heavens to consume the sacrifices, we are commanded to bring our own 'hedyot', common flame. The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals 86. Rambam writes that meditating on the wonders of nature is one way we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through approaching God in a natural way. Even while splitting the Sea to allow the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what has transpired. There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born in the Midbar during the forty year travel to Eretz Yisrael. From the earliest days that he or she can remember, food, in the form of manna, is dropped from the heavens. To this person, that is not the least bit miraculous. It is as natural as natural can be. Fast forward, they enter Eretz Yisrael and the manna stopped falling. Joshua takes some seeds and places them into the earth ? a seeming waste of the scant food they still had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the ground ? how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! Were we to see food falling from the heavens today, we would proclaim a clear miracle! We are accustomed to food growing from the earth. Is there really a difference between food coming from the ground or from the sky? The only difference is what we are used to. My definition of "old age" is having lost the ability to be amazed. As "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so are "miracles." 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering ? for there is always need to give thanks. There is a beautiful insight in the Avudraham on laws and commentary on prayers. When the shatz says Modim, the congregation recites "The Rabbis' Modim". Why is that? The Avudraham says that for all blessings in the Sh'moneh Esrei we can have an agent. For 'Heal Us', for 'Bless Us with a Good Year', and so forth we can have a messenger ? the Shliach Tzibbur can say the blessing for us. However, there is one thing that no else one can say for us. We must say it for ourselves. That one thing is "Thank You". Hoda'ah has to come from ourselves. No one can be our agent to say 'Thank You.? With this in mind, I wish to thank Micha Berger for all he does. It is also human nature to take many things for granted. It isn?t easy to do what he does and I don?t envy him. But I do admire what he does with humility. Kol hakavod! May he continue for many, many years to come. "A life without sacrifice or thankfulness is a life purely selfish.? rw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 02:45:22 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> >From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. Since it is difficult to figure out exactly how much salt water one needs, the salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. If one forgot to prepare salt water before Shabbos, the Shulchan Aruch Harav (473:19) rules that one should make only a very small amount of salt water, which will only be enough for the dipping of the Karpas. For those who also have the custom to dip an egg in salt water, they may make enough to be used for the Karpas and the egg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 19 06:43:17 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:43:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? Message-ID: <1521466952688.47763@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one forgot to prepare Charoses before Shabbos, how should it be prepared on Shabbos? A. Preparing Charoses on Shabbos can involve two different Melachos, Tochein (grinding) and Losh (kneading), and each will need to be addressed. Tochein: It is assur (prohibited) to grind fruits or vegetables on Shabbos, and therefore one may not, for example, grate apples. In order to permit cutting up apples, the following modifications must be made (Mishnah Berurah 321:45): * The apples may only be cut with a knife, not with a grater. * The apples must be cut into larger pieces than one would have cut them had he been making charoses during the week. * They may only be cut right before the meal. * One may only cut as much as one will need for that meal. Losh: Similarly, modifications are necessary when combining the ingredients (e.g. wine, apples and nuts). * The ingredients must be added in reverse order of how they would normally be added: Normally the wine is added last, but on Shabbos the wine must be added first. * The Charoses must be made watery and may not be made thick. * One may not stir the ingredients together in the normal manner. Instead, one may mix the ingredients together using crisscross motions, removing the spoon after each stroke. Alternatively, one can mix the ingredients with a knife, since this is not the normal method of mixing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simon.montagu at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 16:01:59 2018 From: simon.montagu at gmail.com (Simon Montagu) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:01:59 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Professor L. Levine via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis > > > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs for Shabbos. The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 19 08:06:30 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F.B3.03148.C22DFAA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 10:40 AM 3/19/2018, Joel Rich wrote: > few months ago I was in the main shul in a yishuv. The shul was quite >large. There was a psak there by the shul rav stating in a small >community shul, where everyone knows everyone, it makes complete sense >that if there is a chatan, then one doesn't say tachanun. However, in >this shul, in which strangers pray there every day and even not all the >members know everyone, the presence of a chatan doesn't really add to >their simcha. That being the case, visitors to the shul should say >tachanun, even if the congregation doesn't. >================================= >interesting-I'd love to know the source-seems unusual to split the >minyan (I can think of only one example- a sandek at mincha after morning brit) I recall that at least once R. A. Miller had me pass a note that he wrote to a chosson telling him to leave the shul so the minyan could say tachanun. I am told that Rav Schwab also used to send a chosson out so the shul could say tachanun. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 07:48:57 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:48:57 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Shalosh Seudos late in the Afternoon Message-ID: <1521557287764.1421@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. For me it raises questions about the common practice of men eating Shalosh Seudos in shul after Mincha. Another question I have about this practice is that it leaves the women at home alone and many will not eat Shalosh Seudos at home alone, whereas if the husband came home to eat the third meal chances are the wife would join him. Q. This year, because the first day of Pesach is Shabbos, one must make sure to eat three meals on the first day of Yom Tov. Is there any issue with eating Shalosh Seudos late in the afternoon? A. The mitzvah of honoring Yom Tov includes refraining from beginning a meal on erev Yom Tov within 3 hours of sunset. Chazal forbade starting a meal close to Yom Tov, so that one will enter Yom Tov with an appetite. Even on Shabbos, when there is a requirement to eat Shalosh Seudos, it is preferable that one begin Shalosh Seudos more than three hours (sha'os zemaniyos - halachic hours) before sunset. In early Spring, a halachic hour will be only slightly longer than a regular hour. However, it is also preferable to eat Shalosh Seudos after davening Mincha. Therefore, one should try to attend an early Mincha on Shabbos, so one can start Shalosh Seudos more than three hours before sunset. If this is not possible, one should eat before davening Mincha. However, if one was delayed and did not begin Shalosh Seudos before this time, the Mishnah Berurah (529:8) writes that one must still eat Shalosh Seudos even after this time. One should scale back the meal, so that one will still have an appetite at night. The Magen Avrohom writes that this even applies in a year such as this one when Shabbos is also the first day of Yom Tov. In other words, we are required to scale back our eating in the late afternoon of the first day of Yom Tov, in order to have an appetite at night (which is the second day Yom Tov). The Mishnah Berurah (Beiur Halacha 529, s.v. B'erev) questions why this should be so. How could enjoying the first day of Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah from the Torah, get pushed off because of the need to honor the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a mitzvah d'rabbanan? However, the Mishnah Berurah recognizes that the ruling of the Magen Avrohom was accepted by the later poskim, and elsewhere, the Mishnah Berurah (471:16) quotes the Magen Avrohom without comment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 20 02:10:40 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:10:40 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> >From https://goo.gl/Wi8ujU PLEASE PASS THE KNEIDLACH On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was not kneaded or baked well. Although he points out that every Rav should supervise the matzah baking in his town to ensure that this does not occur, nevertheless, this was a valid concern. However, he continues, nowadays when the matzos are made very thin, there is no concern and "lo machzikinan issura" - one does not need to presume that there is anything prohibited unless he knows it to be a fact. He cites the She'ailas Yaavetz who quotes his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that one should not refrain from simchas Yom Tov because of far-fetched concerns and that he saw "chasidei olam" - exceedingly righteous people, who ate soaked matzos. Similarly, the Vilna Gaon is quoted as permitting soaked matzos (Ma'aseh Rav). The Mishnah Berurah (458:4) quotes the Sha'arei Teshuvah that according to the basic halacha one is allowed to eat gebrokts,especially since our matzos are very thin. However, one should not spurn those who are stringent. This web page has a comprehensive discussion about Gebrokts. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:43:41 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Please Pass the Kneidlach In-Reply-To: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> References: <1521536991038.20016@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321184341.GE21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:10:40AM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from Maane Simcha Foundation's Ask the Rabbi column: : On the other hand, we find many poskim who were unconcerned about : the stringent opinions and permitted the consumption of gebrokts. The : Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) maintains that the basis for the chumrah was : that at one time matzos were made very thick and the dough inside was : not kneaded or baked well... And, as already stated, the SA haRav made the opposite argument. Besides "not kneaded or baked well" would mean assur even if the matzah never got wet. It's about how well the flour and water was mixed. In any case, it is unfair to the article to quote "the other hand" while elliding the stong arguments the same article makes for the first hand. (Including a rishon, the Ra'avan, and the possibility that avoiding gebrochts is the implication of a gemara.) And this: > THE CHASAM SOFER'S MINHAG > It is interesting to note that there is a discrepancy in the sources > regarding the Chasam Sofer's custom vis-`a-vis eating gebrokts. On the > one hand, he writes in a teshuvah (Yoreh Deah, #222, s.v. ela) that > it is a "mitzvah and prishus" not to eat soaked matzah on Pesach. This > would indicate that he did not eat gebrokts. On the other hand, we find > in the Minhagei Chasam Sofer (10:25) that he ate knaidlach. (See also > Shu't Maharshag [mahadura kama] 56:2.) > It is possible that the Chasam Sofer held that there is room to be > stringent according to halacha, but when it came to his minhagim, > he did not wish to deviate from how his teacher, Rav Nosson Adler, > conducted himself. Therefore, in his responsa he wrote what he held, > while in his personal conduct he acted differently. Since he held that > it was only a chumrah, he did not accept it upon himself as it meant > changing a minhag. (See Shu't Sheivet Sofer, Orach Chaim #27; Sefer > Moadim l'Simcha, vol. V, pg. 442.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What you get by achieving your goals micha at aishdas.org is not as important as http://www.aishdas.org what you become by achieving your goals. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Henry David Thoreau From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 21 11:24:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:24:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: <1521452678580.89662@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180321182459.GD21110@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This is because : > Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may not prepare a large amount of : > salt water on Shabbos, since this was done in the process of tanning hides. : > The Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more than one needs : > for Shabbos. : The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he looks from exactly : the opposite perspective. He says that the issur is making more than one : needs for Shabbat, and the reason that making a large amount is asur is : because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I don't see how the two differ. The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. "More than one needs for Shabbos" and "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" both say that. RSM's version has the advantage of emphasizing the appearance aspect of hakhanah, how is that "exactly the opposite"? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From JRich at sibson.com Thu Mar 22 02:17:44 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:17:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] davening outside Message-ID: <9cd03a88e7874cf1ae702f31a300c9bf@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I recently attended a levaya in Bet Shemesh for the first time. After the kevura a mincha minyan was organized outside near the funeral hall (which was not in use) and the kollel room (also not in use). When I suggested using one of those venues rather than davening outside (see S"A O"C 90:5 et al) I was told that at this cemetery davening always took place outside. I understand it's not forbidden but wondered why it would be done if there was an inside alternative. Anyone know? KT Joel Ri THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 05:46:37 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:46:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts Message-ID: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/26LwUE Interestingly, one posek even voiced opposition to the minhag, arguing that the limitations imposed by its adherence would place unnecessary limitations on Pesach menus, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the Yom Tov. It is important to note that even those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement. For this reason, Hasidim and others following this minhag often partake of gebrokts on the eighth day of Pesach*, so as to symbolically join their brethren who have not adopted the chumra. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated requirement." Indeed, I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:40:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?The_Real_Shiurim_=96_They=92re_Smaller_?= =?windows-1252?q?Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/Fx7AAh Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger than what longstanding minhag requires. For example, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, zt?l (a nephew of Rav Simcha Zelig of Brisk), said that Jews in Brisk used a becher that was 70 ml, which is 2.36 oz. Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt?l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora?ah 12). Rav Chaim Naeh?s shiur for a revi?is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz. (Interestingly, the number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos. The Chazon Ish?s shiur for a revi?is is 150 grams, which is the gematria of the words ?kos hagun.?) See the above URL for more. Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten in previous years. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 22 15:40:27 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:40:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] More on Not Eating Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> References: <1521722740816.15752@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <92032b1c-17c6-9ee9-533d-f9293fdc4656@sero.name> On 22/03/18 08:46, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > > I wonder how many of "those who keep this custom are careful to > emphasize that it is only a stringency, and not a halachically-mandated > requirement." ?Indeed, ?I wonder how many people who do not eat Gebrokts > know what the halacha is regarding not eating Gebrokts. Pretty much all of them, at least in chu"l, since they davka do eat it on the last day, even though all the strictures against chomets are still in place. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 09:55:08 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:55:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Real Shiurim -- They're Smaller Than You Think In-Reply-To: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> References: <1521740374958.44259@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180323165508.GB15676@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:40:31PM +0000, Professor L. Levine quoted from R Rephael Fuchs's column in the Jewish Press at : : Today, many charts outline exactly how much matzah, maror, and wine must : be eaten at he Seder. These shiurim, however, are significantly larger : than what longstanding minhag requires. And if we take a break from Ashkocentrism, many Sepharadim use the Rambam's shiurim, which is creatinly at this point "longstanding minhag". : Another gadol of the previous generation, Rav Shlomo Zalman : Auerbach, zt"l, recounted that when Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh published his : sefer on shiurim, Shiurei Tzion, the Jews of Yerushalayim were shocked at : how machmir he was (Meged Givos Olam II, Darchei Hora'ah 12). Rav Chaim : Naeh's shiur for a revi'is is 86 grams, or 2.9 oz... R' Yochanan Lombard explains how this happened at : To clarify the issue a bit, Rav Chaim Naeh set out to support the existing minhag that was essentially based on a coin called a `dirham' which was used commonly as a certified weight. This coin was used extensively as a standard measure of weight throughout the Middle East from the times of the Rambam, who quotes it as the means of measuring halachic quantities. While Rav Naeh was fighting this cause, the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, and the dirham lost its stability. Unknowingly, the dirham Rav Chaim Naeh was using as a standard measure was roughly 10% larger than it was over the centuries, which threw him off a bit. Interestingly enough, Chazon Ish, who held the measurements should be doubled, did not double Rav Chaim Naeh's measurements based on the dirham, but rather what actually fit other standards, i.e. 75 cc. On a personal note, years back I used to sell eggs and measured dozens of them, finding that eggs are naturally around 50cc, putting the Reviit at 75cc (nowadays chickens are treated to grow large eggs and therefore the standard egg is almost 60cc which would fit Rav Chaim Naeh's measurement). Since Rav Chaim Naeh's halachic reasoning is based on the tradition of the dirham, and we know for certain that the dirham was actually smaller, Rav Chaim Naeh would surely agree that the Reviit should be 75cc. Which is what above Rambam-following Sepharadim aim for, as it is the Rambam who ties the revi'is to 27 dirhams. BTW, R Modechai Willig holds 2.5floz (75cc) as well. : number 86 is also the gematria of the word kos... As if "grams" have any Jewish meaning? (BTW, the spectrum of light reflected by murex tekheiles peaks at a wavelength of 613 nanometers. Equally specious.) : Last year I purchased an inexpensive scale and my grandchildren used : it to weigh out the amounts of matzo and morror (Romaine lettuce) based : on a chart that came from a sefer written by a rabbi who was an expert : in these amounts. It turned out that the amounts of morror and matzo : determined in this manner were considerably less than what we had eaten : in previous years. Was the Rav Sepharadi? They have a long tradition of assuming that all matzah weighs alike, and therefore using weight to measure volume. It is far more accurate than using area to approximate volume, as most modern charts do. Two hand matzos could easily differ in thickness by 1/3 or more without someone noticing, so that the same area of matzah similarly differ in volume and yet mentally estimate the same. However, the flour to water ratio of matzah doesn't vary nearly that much, once baked. Nor the weight of different flour. Also the problem with relying on mimeticism for matzah. (Not so for wine or maror.) Matzos had been steadily getting thinner from 1750 to 1950 or so. And it is so hard to notice differences in matzah thickness and take them fully into account? Have social norms kept up with the reality despite seeming different to the eye? RMWillig has a kezayis of 22.5cc, and writes that Middos veShiurei haTorah pg 277 reports matzah has half the weight of an equivalent volume of water. So, RMW says a kezayi matzah weighs 11.25gm. (1cc of water weighs 1gm, by definition. So, the weight of 2cc of matzah is 1gm.) We buy matzah by the pound, so you can estimate a kazayis pretty accurately if you know how many matzos are in a 1lb box. (2lb boxes, divide by 2, naturally.) There are 40.3 or so kezeisim in a pound. matzos / lb -> kezayis matzah 6 -> 2/13 of a matzah 7 -> 1/6 8 -> 1/5 9 -> 2/9 10 -> 1/4 And if you're buying Syrian matzah from R David in Flatbush 3.5 -> 2/23 Yes, 11 to 12 kezeisim from a matzah smaller than a personal pizza. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Fri Mar 23 07:55:26 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halachic Acceptability of Soft Matzah Message-ID: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu> Please see the very interesting article about this topic at https://goo.gl/aMfutH YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:07:14 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The SA says that one may not prepare a lot. The MB ad loc says this means > more than one could explain as being necessary while still Shabbos. > > "More than one needs for Shabbos" > and > "because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat" > both say that.... My limited understanding: the Elya Raba says that the actual making of a large quantity is ossur because it appears as if one is doing a forbidden melacha. The M"B supports the Elya Raba and therefore when a large quantity is required it should be prepared in several small bowls and not a large quantity in a single bowl. (Tangent? The M"B 10 says that there are opinions who are lenient and say that if one adds oil to the salt before adding water or adds oil to the water before adding salt, it is muter to make even a large quantity (but only what is necessary for that Shabbos) because the oil prevents the water and salt from being a pickling solution. The Elya Rabba says that the Mechaber disagrees.) Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be regardless of the quantity or purpose. The M"B 473:21 specifically addresses this issue vis-a-vis shabbos/seder night. (I guess he's assuming that the salt water one would use for the seder is 2/3 salt?). Given all this is why a number of poskim (to my limited understanding) recommend making the salt water for the seder before shabbos. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:22:11 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:22:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 02:07:14PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : Note, too, that the SA here (321:2) also says: "It is forbidden to : prepare even a small amount of a saline solution that is two parts salt : and one part water." He doesn't qualify it. This would seem to be : regardless of the quantity or purpose. Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. It is only if you are looking at hachanah that quantity would matter. Making too much for it to plausibly be for shabbos would be hakhanah even if it weren't 2:1. Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From sholom at aishdas.org Fri Mar 23 11:32:38 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:32:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? In-Reply-To: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> References: <20180323182210.GA10152@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Importantly, the SA says the reason is that it's too much like ibud. ... > Also, if the only melakhah were hakhanah, there would be no problem > making salt water for the seider bein hashemashos. BhS, hakhanah for a > mitzvah is allowed. It's dami le'ibud that creates the whoile issue. Right. I didn't mention ibud, but that's correct. But you bring up an important point that's very relevant to our wives (or whoever is setting up the table particularly for the second seder): that hachana for a mitzvah is allowed during bein hashmoshes. (Actually: must it be for a mitzvah? Irrelevant in this case, but just curious). From cantorwolberg at cox.net Fri Mar 23 12:05:14 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:05:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:57:40 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:57:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? Message-ID: . > From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis> > Q. When should I prepare the salt water for the Seder? > A. The salt water should be prepared before Shabbos. This > is because Shulchan Aruch (OC 321:2) rules that one may > not prepare a large amount of salt water on Shabbos, > since this was done in the process of tanning hides. The > Mishnah Berurah (321:11) defines a large amount as more > than one needs for Shabbos. R' Simon Montagu responded: > The Mishnah Berurah doesn't say that at all, in fact he > looks from exactly the opposite perspective. He says > that the issur is making more than one needs for Shabbat, > and the reason that making a large amount is asur is > because it looks like preparing for after Shabbat. I think there's a typo here. I don't see anything in MB 321:11 about defining "large amount". Perhaps the intention was for seif katan 9 or 12? (Prior to my looking in the MB, I was going to suggest that "more than one needs for Shabbos" might be dependent on whether he means "for THIS Shabbos" or "for a TYPICAL Shabbos", the difference being that most of us use a significant amount of salt water at the Seder, while hardly anyone ever makes salt water the rest of the year.) Akiva Miller From meirabi at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 06:29:57 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:29:57 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Please Pass the Kneidlach Message-ID: The Sha'arei Teshuvah (460:2) explains the Chumrah was initiated in response to the Chametz risks associated with thick Matzos which were specifically baked for making Matza Meal and tended to be under-baked [even today specially baked Matza is used to provide a white flour - just try it, crush some of regular Matza and see how heavily it is speckled with dark spots - a BalaBustas nightmare] The problem was not with combining it with water but that the Matza meal was ALREADY Chametz. And so they issued a Chumrah to not eat the foods made with such Matza Meal - until they stamped out that practice and made all Matza Meal from Matza that was baked till it was hard and CRUSHED [whereas the soft under-baked Matza was grated on a Rib-Ayzen, it could not be crushed, it was soft] Indeed, as R Micha notes, this means it was Assur even if the Matzah never got wet. However, it is not about how well the flour and water was mixed but about how well it was baked. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:30:02 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:30:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives Message-ID: I just saw that the OU rules that iodized salt must be kasher l'pesach because it uses a corn derivative. Tara milk puts in a vitamin D supplement that comes from a plant so it is labeled "L'ochlei kitniyot bilvad". Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this way, that isn't my question. Ben From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 24 12:46:20 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 21:46:20 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza Message-ID: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> In this week's Shabbat B'shabato (yea, it is back! Unfortunately, the publication isn't online nor is the translation), two rabbis discuss soft matzot.? I'll sum by saying that rabbis agree that according to the dry (no pun intended) halacha, there is no problem with Ashkenazim using soft matzot.? Their argument is a bit more nuanced. Rav Eli Tzilicha feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. Rav Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an argument here about the halacha. From llevine at stevens.edu Sun Mar 25 07:59:03 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Thick and Thin of the History of Matzah In-Reply-To: <5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> References: <1521816868728.57111@stevens.edu>,<5AB792DB.70404@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <1521989883268.41996@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky saw my post about his article dealing with soft matzos and sent me the following: You might be interested in the companion article: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cantorwolberg at cox.net Sun Mar 25 07:26:35 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:26:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Coincidence Message-ID: The first day of Pesach (15 Nissan) and the actual date of Tisha b?Av (9 Av) always fall on the same day of the week without exception. It has been asked why one day dedicated to mourning and sadness should coincide with Pesach. Jewish history, from its very inception, appears to be a veritable paradox. The mystical wheel of Israel?s destiny is a dissonance of light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, etc. It has been said that from the depths of Israel?s severest tribulations, the seeds of redemption are miraculously sown. History clearly depicts how Israel?s deliverance constantly emerges from the midst of tragedy. It is for this reason that Pesach, which symbolizes redemption, coincides with Tisha b?Av, which embodies suffering and destruction. Accordingly, both holidays fall on the same day indicating that salvation shall spring forth from the very core of disaster. ?Such then is the message of Passover?undying conviction that death shall be swallowed up in victory; that the dry bones of liberty, democracy and human brotherhood shall everywhere rise again, strong and irresistible; and that the Passover ideal of human freedom shall become part of the very life of the nations. The late Chief Rabbi, Dr Joseph H Hertz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afolger at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 04:04:17 2018 From: afolger at aishdas.org (Arie Folger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:04:17 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma Message-ID: Dear Ovedim, In a parallel discussion the different estimates of kazayit were noted, including how Rav Chaim Noe may have overestimated his shiurim by 10% because the dirham grew by 10%. Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. Therefore I ask, are there any poskim who insist on an amma of 43.5-45cm? Does Rav Willig, who paskens that a reviit is 75cc, hold that ammot are that small? Do other poskim? Kol utv, -- Arie Folger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 09:04:21 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:04:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 26/03/18 07:04, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. 1 revi'it = 10.8 cubic etzba'ot. Therefore a 75 ml revi'it means a 45.8 cm amma. > An amma of 43.5-45cm would make many eiruvin passul. How so? 4.6 m gaps treated as less than 10 amot? 23 cm gaps treated as lavud? -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 09:13:59 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:13:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The size of a kazayit and of an amma In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180326161359.GA16120@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:04:17PM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : Now all shiurim are somehow connected with one another, weight, volume and : length, are they? Hence, if our kezeitim and reviiyot are too large and : should be smaller, so should the amma. IIUC, a reviit of 75cc corresponds : to an amma of roughly 43.5-45cm. Funny you should mention that, because I had a half-written email to Avodah on the subject that I think evaporated before sent. (I think I accidentally deleted it shutting down for Shabbos.) A revi'is is 2 x 2 x 2.7 cubic etzba'os (Pesachim 109a, but see Y-mi Sheqalim 3:2 [vilna 13b, bavli 9a], see Tosafos ad loc, "revi'is" giving two explanations of the Y-mi both of which mean ruling like the Babli). So, the weight of a durham, and knowing whether we map weight of a revi'is of water of odf wine would allow us to compute an ammah. RCN's 86cc instead of 75cc revi'is is an error in volume of 1.1467, or an error in length of the cube root of that -- 1.047. So, RCN's ammah would be corrected from 48cm to 45.9cm. The Rambam implies the 75cc revi'is, as the Rambam says a revi'is [of water? wine?] weighs the same as 27 dirham (Edios 1:2) -- the math RCN was trying to do but with problems getting the right dirham. And... Shitas haRambam (acc to Midos veShiurei Torah, R Chaim Benish) is 45.59-46.08cm So I think I did the right math. I think that RCN in theory holds like the Rambam, but had that error in his metzi'us. And I think that RCN was trying to justify the minhag of the Yishuv haYashan and only came in too high because of that error. IOW, it seems to me that the YhY of his day was simply following the Rambam, whether they realized that's what they were doing, or de facto, doing what everyone sees done was the Rambam's shitah. I do not know how you got the range you did, but that's how the inyan looks to me. Still might be an eiruv problem, as far as I know. When I tried to use archology to get historical ammos, I raised the question of whether kelalei hapesaq mean that the historal shiur needn't be the same as the current one. Or that the ammah in Chizqoyahu's day needn't be the same as those found in bayis sheini. (Which I believe includes Zev's corrections of my math.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The goal isn't to live forever, micha at aishdas.org the goal is to create so mething that will. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 08:19:56 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:08 PM 3/25/2018, Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim: I am moving this to Avodah. >R' Yitzchok Levine wrote: > > > Today as I walked home from a kiddush with a neighbor he told > > me that his brother-in-law, who did not eat Gebrokts in the > > past, has decided that from now on he will eat Gebrokts. His > > brother-in-law is not on my email list, so the Committee to > > Encourage People to Eat Gebrokts cannot take credit for this > > switch. Nonetheless, this is something that the Committee applauds. > >I would applaud it too, *IF* that person asked a shailah about whether >he is allowed to change that practice. > >If he simply decided, on his own, to abandon his previous practice, >then I would NOT applaud it. > >(Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >Akiva Miller (who has never avoided gebroks) Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 08:51:23 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:51:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts Message-ID: R' Yitzchok Levine asked: <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 11:38:28 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87a94f090ae24f74b8e7ebbaa9cd7fb8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <<< Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? >>> Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all I said was that he should ask. ------------------------- I?m pretty sure R?YBS included specifics on R?H matir if he had something as an issue (e.g. standing for prayer) KT Joel Rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 12:17:49 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:17:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on :> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) : Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! Tir'u baTov! -Micha From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:11:07 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:11:07 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. OTOH if the person who refrained from eating gebrokts does believe that it is a din, he doesn't need a heter. But in any case, consultation with a rav who is competent in these matters is a good idea. On 3/26/2018 5:51 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Good question. Maybe it works, maybe not. I have heard that it can be > relied on for relatively minor stuff, but your suggestion would do > away with an individual case-by-case Matir Neder entirely. Anyway, all > I said was that he should ask. > > Akiva Miller From JRich at sibson.com Mon Mar 26 12:35:41 2018 From: JRich at sibson.com (Rich, Joel) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:35:41 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating kitniyot. --------------------- You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear Kt Joel rich THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. Thank you. From larry62341 at optonline.net Mon Mar 26 12:38:34 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:38:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: At 03:17 PM 3/26/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >:> (Please note my use of the word "practice". I am not paskening on >:> whether or not this counts as a minhag. That's the posek's job.) > >: Why doesn't the hataras Nedarim we make before Rosh Hashana work for this? > >If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do anyway. If your father stood for kiddush and you decide based on Tosafos that you want to sit, do you have to be mater Nedar for this? I think not. The advent of Chassidus led to changing many minhagim, such as davening Nusach Ashkenaz. Do you think that people were mater Nedar at the time? I think not. I think they just began to follow the changes that Chassidism introduced. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:17:35 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:17:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> >From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder (annulment of vows)? A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment. [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] If one later finds themselves unable to continue this stringency, he must go before three men and annul the vow. The Dagul Merivava (YD 214) differentiates between one who is in need of a temporary dispensation and one who will be permanently unable to continue this practice. In the case of a temporary illness, the Dagul Merivava writes that there is no need to be matir neder. However, if one's medical condition is such that from now on they will be unable to maintain their former stringencies then they must be matir neder. However, the Shach (214:2) does not make this distinction. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt"l recommends that in all cases one should be matir neder. However, if one was not matir neder, even if they have a chronic condition, they may rely on the Mesiras Moda'ah (public pronouncement) that one makes on erev Rosh Hashanah stating that one does not want stringencies to count as vows (see Minchas Shlomo I:91:20). Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Mon Mar 26 13:58:31 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:31 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Then the word minhag would me "a practice which I can dump every year if I so chose". The idea that "a snake would bite you" if you change a minhag becomes ridiculous. Ben On 3/26/2018 9:38 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > There would still be minhag,? but one could? decide not to follow some > of the minhagim of one's parents,? which, of course, one can do anyway. From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 13:14:32 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:14:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> References: <51cd21da-5162-8da0-405c-49b11feeba01@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1565f2a8-82b9-509f-9828-1ed466a2fdc1@sero.name> On 26/03/18 16:11, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK that teqes doesn't help for family-made inherited minhagim. If it > did then we all could decide if we want to continue saying Kabbalat > Shabbat every year.? Or - we could all dump the minhag of not eating > kitniyot. Or maariv. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:43:50 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] No more (Not eating) Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: <073931e71d5c4e298ba85b357f6a75ad@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <8E.A8.03752.FDF09BA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <20180326191749.GB3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20180326204350.GC3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:38:34PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: :> If this worked, there would be no concept of minhag at all! : : There would still be minhag, but one could decide not to follow : some of the minhagim of one's parents, which, of course, one can do : anyway. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:35:41PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : You may want to listen to r' j ziring's latest shiurim on minhag-the : source and force of family minhagim isn't really clear RHZ often discusses "how halkhah works" type questions. I highly recommend his YUTorah page for anyone who enjoys that type of Avodah thread. As for minhag avos, we've discussed this in the past. We'll ignore Yom Tov sheini shel goliyos, since that's a derabbanan established to preserve what was normal practice by necessity. The use of the idiom "minhag avoseikhem beyadeikhem" aside, it's not a minhag. But in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim 50b), we have the case of the people of Baishan (Beit She'an?) are apparently being told by R' Yochanan to follow minhag because the parents did it. Invoking "shema beni musar avikha...." In past iterations I argued from that sugya and the parallel Y-mi that what we call "minhag avos" is about the binding nature of our ancestor's minhag hamaqom. Admittedly, the cases in the gemaros are wholesale -- a community that moved is told preserve the community's minhag avos. So my theory isn't muchrach. But if the principle were understood to apply to invidivudals too, it would solve the mystry of minhag avos. And yes, most of the times I cited this idea was in response to attacks on gebrochts. Runner up: qitniyos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's nice to be smart, micha at aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody Fax: (270) 514-1507 From llevine at stevens.edu Mon Mar 26 13:04:52 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:04:52 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Great Matzah Controversy: Should Matzah Be Made By Hand Or Machine? Message-ID: <1522094628980.68558@stevens.edu> From https://goo.gl/xoFGcP With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic (Jewish law) controversy broke out over the kosher status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody (1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine matzah was no better than chametz (leaven). Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur (1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis, particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe, maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871). As the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 13:52:18 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180326205218.GE3054@aishdas.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:17:35PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From Today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis : :> A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on :> themselves a stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and :> Yom Kippur) and followed through even one time, with the expectation :> that they would continue this practice every year, it is considered as :> though he made a vow... : Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? If yes, then can one deduce : from what Rav Moshe wrote that one who did not eat Gebrokts can simply : start eating Gebrokts on Pesach without further ado? It's a minhag hamaqom of the last location the family lived in that had an established a minhag hamaqom. Which is different than "one who accepted on themselves". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:23:29 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Rav Eli Tzilicha : feels that there are real advantages to eating soft matzot and these : advantages over rule any minhag to use the cracker-like matzot. 1- I am not sure any such minhag to use cracker-like matzos actually exists. Not every common practice rises to the level of minhag. It depends if we switched as a chumerah, or as a pragmatic way to mass produce matzah. (Before freezers, soft matzah has to be used within hours of baking. I take mine out at urchatz for use by koreich. And any left out, even in a plastic bag, is no joy to eat the next morning.) : Rav : Yehoshua Dake feels that since Ashkenazim have lost the mesoret of how : to make these matzot, they shouldn't make them or eat. However, Sefardim : and Teimanim who do have a mesoret are permitted to do so. : My question would be if a Sefardi rav says that a matza is perfectly : kosher, why can't an Ashkenazi person eat it? It isn't as if there is an : argument here about the halacha. 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade ago. I asked him about buying soft matzah from a Syrian matzah bakery in Flatbush. He told me that the concept of soft matzah was just fine, but it was up to me to research the quality of the (equally Syrian) hechsher! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 14:51:36 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> References: <1522095392186.3323@stevens.edu> Message-ID: On 26/03/18 16:17, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Is not eating Gebrokts a hidur mitzvah? No, it is a chumra, not a hiddur. It is done because of a concern for chometz, although a slight one. >? If yes, ?then can one deduce > from?what?Rav Moshe?wrote that one?who did not eat Gebrokts can simply > start eating?Gebrokts?on Pesach without further?ado? No, one could not, because it's not something one took on personally but is a community practice, so it's included in the laws of "mokom shenohagu". -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 14:42:34 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder Message-ID: > > Q. If one is ill on Pesach and will be unable to keep all the stringencies > that they are accustomed to, such as consuming large portions of Matzah, > Marror and the four cups of wine, and instead will need to rely on the > smallest measurement, must they go through the process of being matir neder > (annulment of vows)? > > A. Shulchan Aruch (YD 214:1) writes that one who accepted on themselves a > stringency (such as fasting between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) and > followed through even one time, with the expectation that they would > continue this practice every year, it is considered as though he made a > vow. This is so, even though he did not make any verbal commitment > My limited understanding of YD 214 is this: 1. The Mechaber took the machmir view. IIRC (a few years back I learned this siman, so I'm going from memory right now) the B"Y brings the Ramban who says that a neder needs more than a mere ma'aseh and intent. The Mechaber ended up not paskening like the Ramban. 2. Don't we have a meta-halachic rule of sorts that sha'as ha'd'chak one may follow an important, albeit minority, opinion? 3. If #1 and #2 above are correct, then can't the choleh simply rely on the Ramban (and, others, iirc) who take the more meikel view of what constitutes a neder than the Mechaber does? [Poskim also consider it a vow if one practiced the stringency three times, even if he did not have intent to continue the practice every year, (see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 67:7).] That would be with stam intent, no? If he did it three times, but had specific intent that he was not binding himself, it's not a neder. Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mandels at ou.org Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: mandels at ou.org (Mandel, Seth) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On March 26, 2018 at 5:42:38 PM EDT, Sholom Simon wrote: > Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to > assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an extra > beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the law, does > not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would not be required. > I totally don't understand this! Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, > or refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach? The whole idea > of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but refrains > from it anyway. That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, isn't it? Some Rabbonim are worried that if they tell people the truth, people will start being mzalzel in other things. According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make it a never. The SA and RMo specifically talk about things that have a basis in halokho and are a chumrah, like fasting aseres y'mei t'shuva. Not to avoid d esting tomatoes. If the question is about the size of a Shiur, then a person may consider it a chumrah. But if he observes it because he belies it is required, then again it is s ta'us. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:08:22 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] deprive the minyan of the opportunity to say tachanun Message-ID: . Cantor Wolberg wrote: > Regarding this very topic, I heard a beautiful vort by I > believe Rabbi Moshe Kesselman. He taught that when one Jew > has suffered a loss, then it affects all Jews since we should > be as one. In the same vein, conversely, when one Jew celebrates > a simcha, we should all celebrate and feel the joy (not > necessarily in a literal sense but figuratively speaking. This > is true achdut and therefore, if there is a chatan at the > minyan, we purposely don?t say tachanun because we feel his joy. Thank you for this beautiful thought. It fits well with my suggestion that we should not gleefully skip Tachanun without at least a quick announcement to the congregation, explaining to them exactly which simcha WE are celebrating. But mentioning "a loss" made me think. There's another off-the-calendar situation where we skip Tachanun: A Shiva house. No one would dare suggest that the mourner should leave the shiva minyan so that the others could say Tachanun. Not only would no one dare suggest such a thing, but the idea probably wouldn't even occur to anyone. Why? Because at the shiva house, we are all sad, we are all sharing in the loss (even if not to the extent of mourning). But what if we are NOT in the shiva house? My Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, in Dinei Nefilas Apayim, halacha 7, quotes the Derech Hachayim as follows: "There's no Nefilas Apayim in the avel's house for the whole 7 days of aveilus, and even at mincha on day 7, and even if the aveil is a child. But if the avel is in shul, they do say it while the avel himself does not..." I do note that the parallel between Chasan and Avel is not exact. Halacha 9 there says "The minhag is to not do Nefilas Apayim in a house or shul where there is a chasan..." I wonder why there is a difference, that - according to the Derech Hachayim - the shul skips tachanun for a chasan, but does not skip it for an avel. Perhaps there is some societal difference; in the Derech Hachayim's day, did the shul community feel the chasan's simcha more than they felt the avel's loss? I would love to see what other poskim write on these situations, but I have to get back to my Pesach prep. For now, let me just point out that our poskim treat these issues seriously, and our job is to follow their directions, and not to simply do what feels right to our unlearned minds. Akiva Miller From micha at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 20:32:32 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:32:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kintiyot derivatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327033232.GA4604@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:30:02PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : Are there any kashrut agencies that pasken the " derivatives of : kitniyot aren't kitniyot" rule? I know of rabbanim who rule this : way, that isn't my question. I think there aren't, for Arevimishe reasons. A hekhsher can't split the lines to fine, or it becomes unusable. Once it's certifying a product as lacking qitniyos, it might as well stick to avoiding all qitniyos rather than having a confusing (to some) explanation on each package which minhagim can or can't use the product. The hekhsher system creates least-common-denominator norms like that in a number of ways. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 23:45:35 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 02:45:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a2075bd-4de3-cdaa-6cdb-70962f018544@sero.name> On 26/03/18 18:58, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote: > According to halokho, not eating gebrokhts is like not eating tomatoes. If > you do it because you think it is a chumrah, then no hattoras n'dorim > is required, because it was based on a mistake. If you know it is just > a minhog, then just doing it once or twice or three times does not make > it a never. Not so. It is a chumrah, based on what poskim have determined to be a real, though small and legally negligible, risk of chametz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 01:52:04 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:52:04 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Article about Hand vv Machine Matzos Message-ID: <1522140717898.24845@stevens.edu> Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky has sent me a link to his article at http://halachicadventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2004-matzah-JO.pdf YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Mon Mar 26 22:54:38 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 01:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Being Matir Neder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75e9401a-3f91-110a-1330-688d528d6871@sero.name> On 26/03/18 17:42, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > >> Additionally, Igros Moshe (YD I:127:9) writes that it is logical to >> assume that a positive action which is only a hidur mitzvah (an >> extra beautification of a mitzvah), that is beyond the letter of the >> law, does not have the status of a neder, and hataras nedarim would >> not be required. > I totally don't understand this!? Isn't this directly contrary to YD 214? > > YD 214 itself gives the example of one who fasts between R"H and Y"K, or > refrains from meat and wine starting on Rosh Chodesh Av -- isn't this > almost exactly like refraining from gebrokts during Pesach?? The whole > idea of 214 is a situation where one knows something is muter, but > refrains from it anyway.? That is, in many cases, a hiddur mitzvah, > isn't it? This is why one should never rely on such quotes in secondary (and often tertiary or worse) sources, especially English ones that give the author's summary of what he thinks the source says, but should look up the original source. As RSBA wrote here a while ago, quoting his teacher the B'tzeil Hachochmo, "hastu nachgeschaut?". RMF's words in the original are crystal clear: ========== b e g i n ========== But it seems logical in my view that this is not so, for only when people have treated permitted things as forbidden did our rabbis enact that it is a vow, and not when they were accustomed to doing some good deed. For we only find in the gemara and poskim "things that are permitted but others treat them as forbidden", but we do not find that this concept should apply to "they were accustomed to do", and we cannot derive it from "they treated it as forbidden". And the reason is simple: it's impossible to institute that "they treated it as forbidden" should have the status of an oath, for an oath cannot exist without the mention of "oath", so it is only possible to institute this regarding the status of a vow, as we see on page 15 that they compared it only to "he shall not violate his word", and not to the prohibitions of oaths. And therefore it can only be instituted when "they have treated it as forbidden", where the full status of a vow is possible, if he were to accept it on himself with the explicit term "vow", [in such a case] they enacted [that it should also be a vow] when he practised it with the intention of doing so forever, since he did an effective act in an area where there is some advantage in conducting oneself so, [they enacted] that it should be considered as if he had accepted it on himself with the term "vow". So also if he accustomed himself to fulfilling a full mitzvah, such as tzedakah according to all opinions, and according to RA in the Tosfos and those who hold like him, also Torah study, etc., where a vow in the form of "I shall do" is effective, it is also possible to enact [such a thing]. But "to do" in a matter that is not a full mitzvah but only a mere embellishment, to which the concept of a full vow is not applicable, it is not possible to enact that "they practised" should be considered a vow, for it is no better than if he were to explicitly accept it on himself as a vow, which would be nothing. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From sholom at aishdas.org Mon Mar 26 17:45:18 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:45:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: multipart/alternative Size: 371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Tue Mar 27 07:16:23 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 14:16:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> I raised this issue tangentially in another post. However, i want to raise it now explicitly. Most people who do not eat Gebrokts during Pesach do eat Gebrokts on the 8th day of Pesach. Gebrokts food is made on the 8th day. However, this year the 8th day of Pesach is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare Gebrokts on the 8th day. My wife and I have both been told by people that when the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? Any insight into this contradiction will be appreciated. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 04:18:32 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:18:32 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy Message-ID: = = = = Definition of Chametz and the Leavening Process It is not clear why the Chazon Ish writes [Kovetz Igros, vol 1, letter 185:9] that it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. Flour and water will become Chamets if combined and left unworked [Shulchan Aruch, OC 459:2] at ambient temperature for the time required by an average person to walk a Mil. [generally 18 minutes, Biur Halacha 259:2 also discusses times of 22.5 and 24 minutes. Halacha recognises that if the dough is cool it will not become Chametz even if left for a very long time] Any factors that may warm the mixture, such as sunlight or the warmth of the workers hands or friction from aggressive [machine] kneading, will accelerate the process of becoming Chamets, prompting the Ramo (ibid) to warn ?? that all delays must be minimised. = = = = Authentic Matzah It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. ShA, addressing people who baked their own bread, probably almost daily, and Matza for and during Pesach, understandably, does not bother to describe the baking process. There are however, communities who continue their very ancient tradition of baking their own soft spongy Matza and who provide a window to observe ancient Matza baking before commercialisation. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. = = = = Korech = Making a Wrap Probably the most beloved and impressive proof that Matzah is a soft product comes from the Seder itself. Korech [famously mis-translated as ?sandwich?] actually means ?rolled? or ?make a wrap? = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Matza is Indistinguishable from Chametz The Gemara (Pesachim 7a) asserts that Matza and Chamets are indistinguishable i.e. both look and taste like Pita or Laffa. Indeed, Yemenites Matzot and pita look and taste quite similar. The Mishnah Berurah (446:12) explains the obvious, that in the Gemara?s time, Matza was baked as a thick Pita. = = = = Mouldy Matza The Gemara also discusses mouldy Matza, which only occurs with high moisture content products i.e. soft spongy Matza. Hard, dry Matza almost never becomes mouldy. = = = = Stringy Dough The Gemara (Pesachim 37a, and the Halacha) defines the minimal completion of baking i.e. when the product is no longer at risk of becoming Chamets - as when no doughy threads form when the Matza is torn apart. This test is certainly not applicable to hard crispy Matza. = = = = Sticky Dough An alternative test - noting if dough has stuck to a skewer or toothpick inserted into and removed from the product [Mishnah Berurah (461:13) speaks of poking a finger into the Matza] also cannot apply to hard cracker Matza. As with the Halacha that identifies Matza as a soft spongy product, here too, the Mishnah Berurah?s unqualified acceptance about these tests, strongly suggests he accepts them, even if we prefer to believe the ChChayim ate hard cracker Matza. The Chazon Ish, aware of this, points out [Ch Ish OC, Moed [5733] 120:17, page 190a] that the stringy dough test cannot apply to our hard cracker Matza, not even when it is still a dough. = = = = The Isaron Measure The Tur (end of OC 475) quoting his father the Rosh (early 14th century and again by the Rama, 250 years after the Tur) wrote that the custom in France and Germany was to make the three Matzos for the Seder from one Isaron (a tenth of an Ephah) of flour - 43.2 eggs, > 1200 gr according to modest calculations, thus 400gm Matzos. Our standard hard, thin Matza hardly provide 2 Kezaysim, whilst a standard soft Yemenite Matzah easily has more than 10 Kezaysim. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe OC 5:16:4) observes that originally Matzos were much larger, containing many Kezaysim. Such a large Matza must be quite thick [otherwise it would be unreasonably large and not fit even on a large table] and if baked hard, would not be edible but require a hammer and cold chisel to break. Here, the Mishnah Berurah (475:46) not only leaves this ruling unqualified but actually observes that this custom was still practiced in many places [in the 19th century] The Darkei Moshe (OC 475:6) advises production of even larger i.e. thicker Matzos, to accommodate all participants at a large Seder, with the required amount. The Chok Yaakov (d. 1773; 475:26) makes a very similar observation and the Chasam Sofer used thick soft Matza, giving each participant at his Seder, Kezaysim from the 3 Matzos [Minhagei Maran BaAl HaChasam Sofer (d. 1839); 5731, 10:17 [page 51]. So, the Chasam Sofer?s warning that we avoid thick Matza [Shu"t OC 121] must be referring to extremely thick Matza. = = = = Kol Bo, Levush and RaAvad The Kol Bo (Siman 48; 14th century) and later the Levush ([d.1612] OC 475:7) quote the Ra'avad as saying that the matzos one eats at the Seder for the purpose of fulfilling one?s Mitzvah, ought not be too thick and tasty because they are Lechem Oni, Poor Man?s Bread. This too clearly asserts that Matza was otherwise a soft thick and spongy product. = = = = Matzah Ought not be Too Thick The Shulchan Aruch (OC 460:5) suggests that Matzah should not be too thick, not more than a Tefach, between 3.5 - 4 inches [Iggerot Moshe OC 1:136. see Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:4; Pesachim 37a] The Ashkenazi Rishonim tended to permit thick Matzah, up to a Tefach. [See Yaakov Spiegel, Matzot Avos BePesach, Yerushasenu, 5774, pages 195-196] The Ramo (OC 460:4) advises that Matzah be made as Rekikin, i.e. thin matzot, because they are less likely to become Chametz. The Be'er Heitiv (460:8) defines this thickness at an Etzbah (finger) thick, 10 - 12 mm, quoting the Beit Hillel [died 1690] The Pri Megadim (Eishel Avraham 460:4) defines Etzbah as thumb width. This Chumrah, i.e. not making it one Tefach thick 50 - 60mm, applied to the matzah produced for manufacturing matzah meal. This matzah was baked with the intent of keeping it as white as possible i.e. underbaking it which of course increased the risk of it becoming Chametz. = = = = Traditional Matzah Baking Some, who have visited various soft matzah bakeries, suggest that they witnessed product that was not-fully baked. They claim to have observed a Yemenite woman who was familiar with the process from Yemen, she simply kneaded a soft dough, squashed pieces of it into flattish rounds which were put into the oven, the entire process being completed in under 5 minutes. Now soft Matzah baking requires longer baking at lower temperatures in order to permit the core of the Matzah to bake before the outside burns. Whether it takes 30 seconds or 10 minutes is not the point, rather when baking is completed, there are no doughy threads formed when it is torn apart. The assumption appears to be that whilst it is baking it cannot become Chametz but if it remains doughy it might become Chametz when it cools. The argument for thin hard Matza [which however, has no source, foundation or documentation in Halachic sources] seems to be that when the dough enters the oven and becomes warmed, it may possibly become Chametz instantaneously, therefore it must be baked as quickly as possible i.e. the thinner the Matza the better, and the hotter the oven the better. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Tue Mar 27 12:47:28 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:47:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180327194728.GE568@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : It is important to note that the Halacha nowhere indicates that Matza must : be hard and crisp. It does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy. But it also does not say it must be soft, or even better if soft. It was just often assumed that de facto one's matzah was soft. So how do you get from there to the "should be" of your subject line? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:42:33 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:42:33 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah Message-ID: Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha Although many deem it to be a tradition that has as much authority as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - this is a Grobbe TaUs, I do not publicly call it a joke because that may offend some who believe that it is or V likely is a HLMiSInai, and we certainly must not possibly offend anyone defending practices that have no foundation to day in Halacha but are embraced with all the fervour that ought to be dedicated to Loving HaShem. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 10:17:56 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:17:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> On 27/03/18 10:16, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: > ?My wife and I have both been told by people that when > the 8th day of Pesach is on Shabbos that Gebrokts is prepared on Friday > afternoon for consumption on Shabbos. > > > This makes absolutely no sense to me. ?If Gebrokts are a possible > problem in other years on the first 7 days of Pesach, ?then why aren't > they a problems this year on the 7th day of Pesach? All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From cantorwolberg at cox.net Tue Mar 27 09:30:33 2018 From: cantorwolberg at cox.net (Cantor Wolberg) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] We Are Held acCOUNTable Message-ID: As we know, Passover is the beginning which connects to Shavuot, the end (Atzeret). This is the essential message of sefira. We are told in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba): Al y?dei mitzvat ha?omer, oseh Ha kadosh boruch Hu shalom bein ish l?ishto ?By means of the mitzvah of counting the Omer, God establishes peace between husband and wife.? What a remarkable insight into human nature. The same Midrash asks: ?What was it that earned the Jewish People the right to inherit the Promised Land? The answer: mitzvat ha?omer.? They inherited the Promised Land because they learned what counts and how to count, from freedom to redemption, from independence to the rule of law and from liberty to a commitment to Torah. Envy is the art of counting the other fellow?s blessings instead of your own. Harold Coffin, famous author and columnist (1921-1993) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:07:39 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:07:39 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been baked but simply dried out. HaRav Moshe Sternbuch [Tshuvos VeHanhagos 3:73] considers that our modern day Matza might very well be so designated [no idea why he limits it to hard machine matzah] Consider this - It is clear that a dough that is dried in the sun for example would never qualify as bread and if freeze or low temperature vacuum dried [so that it is not at risk of becoming Chametz] could not be used to fulfil one?s obligation of eating Matzah. It seems that our thin hard Matza, which are proudly promoted as being as thin as possible and ?baked? not in ovens but in furnaces at such great temperature that ?baking? takes mere seconds and if not promptly removed, will be incinerated - are certainly not Chametz, but neither are they Matzos. We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Im Kach NaHagta - Lo Kiyamta ..... Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Tue Mar 27 20:46:22 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:46:22 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Soft vs dry matza In-Reply-To: <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> References: <6dcbbd31-a258-0524-6b96-59da5e1f8480@zahav.net.il> <20180326212329.GF3054@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <6f26b522-7b00-5bfd-b21d-c0897783a2a1@zahav.net.il> The lemaaseh aspect of this question doesn't concern me (I didn't like soft matzah the one year I tried it). I was really asking about the Sefardi/Ashkenazi approach. I had thought that we had moved past the point where "only Ashkenazi rabbis can rule for Ashkenazim even if there is no ethic based halachic issue involved". Ben On 3/26/2018 11:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > 2- RHS answered your question for me halakhah lemaaseh about a decade > ago. From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:04:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:04:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180328100417.GA29240@aishdas.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : very thin (Dak Min HaDak) crackers never attain the status of bread no : matter how much nor the circumstances in which they are eaten [Mishnah : Berurah 168:37, see also ShaAr HaTziyun 168:36] Except that we know that Ashkenazim were making hamotzi on cracker-like matzos in the CC's day. For that matter, I would be shocked to learn that the CC himself used anything but at his own seder! So how could he possibly mean what you're saying he does? : Such crackers/wafers are not deemed to be bread because they have not been : baked but simply dried out. Um, no. They're pas haba bekisnin at worst. We know crackers are considered baked because they get a bori minei mezonos and not a ha'adamah. : We might also add, that the dough which has so little water, cannot produce : what the Halacha defines as bread. MDM [Modern Day Matza] is not Matza. Who says there is a shiur on water / flour ratio, and if so, that it is more than is used for contemporary Ashkenazi matzah? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From zev at sero.name Tue Mar 27 16:11:07 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:11:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chas VeShalom! - Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e96f7bc-8835-e724-1e8c-deda269abcb1@sero.name> On 27/03/18 17:42, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > Gebrokts is not a Hiddur Mitzvah No, it's a chumra. > It does not require revocation as if it were a vow or anything like a vow It certainly does, just like every chumra > As Rav Moshe wrote - those who practised not eating Gebrokts may choose > to eat Gebrokts without compunction if they feel so inclined. Where did he write this? > It is a practise that has no foundation in Halacha It's not *required* by halacha, of course, but it is founded in the teshuvos of the important poskim who recommended it, on strictly halachic grounds. Ir is as founded in halacha as kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and the various communities' respective insistence on either eating or not eating machine matzos (*both* these contradictory practices are founded in halacha). -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 03:19:16 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 06:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day In-Reply-To: <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> References: <1522141177636.15251@stevens.edu> <1522160173848.32170@stevens.edu> <7ae7e45a-fc7a-544c-a1ee-356213b3a1f2@sero.name> Message-ID: <20180328101916.GB4602@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : All cooking on Friday is ostensibly for a hypothetical unexpected : guest (or a horde of ravenous bochurim) who might show up right : before shkiah. Since we don't know this person's identity in : advance, perhaps he will not be a chossid, and will eat the gebrokts : that have been prepared. He might also be Sefardi, so it seems to : me that in EY one may cook kitniyos on Shevi'i shel Pesach, to be : eaten, if our hypothetical guest is a no-show, at the meals of : Shabbos Motzo'ei Pesach. However, an Ashkenazi is permitted to own qitniyos. A chassid is avoiding gebrochts for the sake of avoiding a small risk of producing chameitz. And if chameitz were produced, the chassid wouldn't be allowed to own it. The minhag itself should include not having the result in your posession on day 7. So you answered why it's not a hakhanah issue, but is that enough? (Not that gebrochts observer = chassid really maps.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and micha at aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rav Yisrael Salanter From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:57:15 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrokts on the 8th Day Message-ID: . R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > If Gebrokts are a possible problem in other years on the first > 7 days of Pesach, then why aren't they a problems this year > on the 7th day of Pesach? R' Zev Sero answered as regards Eiruv Tavshilin, but I suspect that RYL's question is from the chometz perspective. In other words, I think RYL is asking, "The 7th day is d'Oraisa! How can they be cooking gebrokts when chometz is d'Oraisa?" My answer is: Yes, they are cooking it, but they're not *eating* it. The chiyuv karays is only on eating chometz, not on owning it. From that perspective, it is not so terrible to be cooking gebrokts on a day when chometz is d'Oraisa, as long as they are careful to avoid eating it. On the other hand, if that logic is correct, then it would be preferable to do the cooking on Chol Hamoed, rather than rely on Hilchos Eruv Tavshilin. Hmmm... even with Eruv Tavshilin, it is preferable to cook before Yom Tov, unless you davka want/need the food to be fresh-tasting. So we must be talking about those sorts of foods/situations, and that's why they are putting it off until Yom Tov. Another reason to delay (rather than cook it on Chol Hamoed) is to avoid the michshol of having the gebrokts around when one might eat it. I can easily imagine some people who avoid this whole mess by not cooking any gebrokts in advance at all, and simply put some matza into their Friday night chicken soup. Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 09:58:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: <8E.80.03148.7F9CBBA5@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 03:53 PM 3/27/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:06:06PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote: >: This year the 8th day is Shabbos, so one cannot prepare the >: Gebrokts on the 8th day. A chassidic friend of mine said that this >: year one is allowed to prepare Gebrokts during the afternoon of the >: 7th day, i.e. Friday afternoon. I told him that I cannot >: understand this. If having Gebrokts on the first 7 days of Pesach is >: not allowed, then how can one prepare it this year on the 7th day. > >So who is it now who can't separate minhag from din on this? See http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/halacha/Volume_7_Issue_4.pdf in particular page 7 and footnotes? According to some one is not even allowed to make Gebrokts during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sholom at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 09:37:30 2018 From: sholom at aishdas.org (Sholom Simon) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:37:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sh'mini sh'mini! Message-ID: During mincha on shabbos, it occurred to me that this is a year where we will leyn from parshas sh'mini eight times. This occurs only in ch'l, and only when Pesach starts on shabbos. During a leap year, in ch'l, when Pesach starts on shabbos, we (always? usually?) read from a different parsha eight times. (I'll leave this is as a trivia question for now). -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Wed Mar 28 12:15:58 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:15:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Volume Five Is Here! Message-ID: <1522264489526.13233@stevens.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/UtXj1C After a long hiatus, ?"? we have just merited the release of a new chelek of ???? ???? ?????, volume five in the series. The last previous new volume to be published appeared over ten years ago. Therefore it is a now with great ???? (joy) that the new volume, which is devoted to the topic of wearing tefillin on chol hamoed, is warmly welcomed. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Wed Mar 28 12:21:25 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:21:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts Message-ID: There are apparently many variations on not eating Gebrokts. I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts on the first two days of Pesach, but do eat Gebrokts the rest of Pesach. And I have heard of people who do not eat Gebrokts the entire Pesach including the 8th day. Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these practices. From my standpoint the entire concept of not eating Gebrokts makes no sense. YL At 01:24 PM 3/28/2018, Sholom Simon wrote: >I don't get that.? My (limited) understand of >the minhag is that one eats it only on the 8th >day -- so why would you make it on chol hamoed, >which is the 6th day?? It seems to me, that the >heter makes more sense if one makes an eruv >tavshilin and then makes it on the 7th day (for eating on the 8th day). > >-- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Wed Mar 28 14:36:14 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Underlying Truth of the Realm Holiness in Israel In-Reply-To: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> References: <487506b5-ad17-0fa9-0257-7e409cd40e45@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20180328213614.GA2102@aishdas.org> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : On 3/16/2018 4:16 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : >I'll agree that nothing is inherently qadosh. Things need to*become* : >qadosh. But the example of Shabbos suggests that this can be done by : >Hashem, not only humans. : : The fruit of an apple tree that grows in a field in Eretz Yisrael : during Shmittah has kedushah... This is a better example than time. There is a reason reason why I summarized the Meshekh Chokhmah's position as being about places or things. I raised the same topic two years ago and was trying to forestall RAM's question. In I wrote about the MC on Har Sinai vs Har haBayis (Shemos 19:13, and in Devarim 1:8 he links it to qedushas EY) and the first Luchos vs the second. Then I concluded with a question related to RAM's and why I tried to forestall it: > That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are > muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I > do not know how it fits. i> Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add? > (Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?) I since saw that the MC on Behar works from a Sifra (via the Ramban) that says "just as it says by Shabbos Bereishis 'Shabbos Lashem', so to it says by Shevi'is, 'Shabbos Lashem'". And then singles them out as not depending on beis din. Unlike Yom Tov or Yovel. And the thread continued for quite a while. (Click on the subject line in the archive link above.) But about the text of the luchos, not my question. For all I know, the MC does clearly spell all this out. Look at the first MC in Behar. I got lost at his quote of the Zohar. He closes saying that because Shabbos and Shemittah attest to Maaseh Bereishis, they don't require qiddush BD. But how that fits his general model? I don't know; unless all the talk about in between about Torah, teshuvah, and cheirus mimal'akh hamaves addresses is. Maybe shemittah fruit are different because they aren't qadosh in-and-of themselves, but a derivative of qedushas ha'aretz which does depend on human action, and whatever it is the MC says about maaseh bereishis. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From meirabi at mail.gmail.com Mon Mar 26 15:58:20 2018 From: meirabi at mail.gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:58:20 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fake Matza - Hard Thin Matza is not a Baked Product ... it is not Bread = it is not Matza Message-ID: is anyone prepared to reflect upon - the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. = = = = Air Pockets Kezayis is a volume not a mass and it is measured WITH the small bubbles within the Matza that is described by the MAvraham, ShA HaRav, ArHaShulchan and MBerruah as being Rachos VeAsuYos KeSeFof - soft and spongy. ONly large air pockets need to be squashed down for measurement of Kezayis. BTW this also puts paid to the well accepted practice of treating a NafuAch, a bubble in the Matza, as though it is Chametz. [Email #2.] Halacha - Matza Should be Soft and Spongy - because that is the way it always was. The onus is upon those suggesting that it may be a hard cracker because there is no doubt that this is a break from, in fact a violation of Mesorah. We have actual living evidence of the tradition of how to make soft Matza, from Ari&Ari. These Matzos, baked by the women of the Yemenite communities, are soft and about the thickness of an adult's finger. The entire process is completed within 5 to 6 minutes. Even the Chazon Ish does not explain why it is preferable to make Matza dough with as little water as possible. The ChCh ate Matza that was not as thin or dry and hard as today's MeHudar Matza When I posted, "Halacha does however, reflect upon Matza being soft spongy." the focus was essentially that in spite of the trend towards hard dry Matza, Halacha makes no mention of it being the preferred Matza and certainly is not critical or issues no warnings about soft authentic Matza. I added 2.5 points A] it is Mezonos B] it is Mezonos than can NEVER become HaMotzi, no matter how much is eaten C] it is not even in the running to be a bread since it is not baked but just dried out - dehydrated dough is not bread - it is like corn/wheat flakes - [Email #3.] So you dont like soft matzah firstly it was nly one sample, try another. Besides it is AT LEAST a Hiddur Mitzvah ... and is likely the only way to actually fulfil ones abligation so put up with the dislike and eat it for the Mitzvah enjoy crackers the rest of Pesach [Email #4] the ChCh and his generation were not eating Matza the likes of what we are today consuming. They were thicker and not baked quite so hard once below 2% moisture, they will pretty much not spoil - like dried fruit [although they also have a high sugar that helps] which was the purpose of baking them not as soft which would go mouldy This madness is driven by money making and one-up-man-ship just like the Esrog Lulav craze, MGBTA=MayGdBlessThemAll The ChCh would NOT make HaMotzi on our Matza I doubt he would issue a public protest - that would only prompt a war and plenty of LH How badly that might shock various people is not ever an actual proof it is a lefty argument of sensitivity and fake outrage Our Matza is not bread they have not been baked but simply dried out. dehydrated dough is not Matza, it is not Mezonos, it is not Pas HaBaAh BeKisnin It is evasive to ask - Who says there is a Shiur on water / flour ratio we have a Mesorah and that is what must be preserved those who wish to change it bear the onus of proving the change is legitimate Best, Meir G. Rabi From meirabi at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 19:28:48 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:28:48 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?PESACH_=E2=80=93_AFTER_400_YEARS_GD=E2=80=99S_?= =?utf-8?q?IN_A_HURRY_TO_REDEEM_US=3F?= Message-ID: We begin the Seder with Matza being a reminder of our suffering ? but we conclude it with a new perspective ? Matza reminds us of how quickly Gd took us out of Egypt. So what?s the big deal, if Gd was in a hurry to get us out He could/should have redeemed us many years earlier? If a beloved member of our family is incarcerated in a penitentiary [derived from the word penance] we would want in every way possible to provide reassurance that she is not forgotten and not abandoned. But sometimes our sympathy and kindness obstructs the penance process and prevents rehabilitation. And our love for her is focused on her rehabilitation. In the words of our Sages ? 80% of our brothers and sisters did not become rehabilitated, they did not leave Egypt. However, when the day, the hour, the minute for release arrives, the warden may not be in a hurry [she?s been here for 30 years 30 minutes longer is no big deal] but we, the family who truly love her and have loved her throughout this long painful process, are clamouring for her release and every second over the limit is offensive and painful. This is the hurry we experienced in our redemption ? it was driven by Gd?s love for His Chosen People [there was no train to catch] and it makes us realise that all the years of affliction were indeed only prompted by Gd?s love for us. This is the two faced Matza. And this is Rabban Gamliel?s adjuration, We MUST declare and have otherwise not fulfilled our obligation, when we have concluded the Seder ? ?This Matza reflects the speed with which HKBH redeemed us? This means, we see and have internalised the message; Matza may at first appear to suggest that we are victims of a random and stochastic world, some people and peoples are just born losers who will live their entire lives subsisting on the bread of affliction whilst others win the lottery. But we know better. We declare ?Matza ? symbolises the speed [the intense and undying love] of our release, there was not even time for the dough to rise.? Even the times we endured Gd?s cold shoulder, it was driven only by His love for His Chosen People. Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Wed Mar 28 21:07:38 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:07:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that element of "je ne sais quoi". The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. BTW: No one asked you to justify anything. Ben On 3/28/2018 9:21 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Do not ask me to justify or explain any of these > practices. From akivagmiller at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 22:25:43 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 01:25:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach Message-ID: . It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to the Pesach as a Korban. (Disclosure: I have not yet sat down with my concordance to verify every single occurrence, but it certainly fits the excerpts that I peruse in Parshas Hachodesh and in Seder Korban Pesach.) The Torah does occasionally call it a Zevach, but it seems that the vast majority of the time, the Torah simply calls it "haPesach" - "the Passover", with no other noun associated with it. And the verb is never "makriv", but just a simple "yaaseh". (Thus, in my opinion, the common translation of "the Passover offering" is misleading, as it misleads the reader to imagine a category of things called "offering", and that "Passover" is a type of offering. But that's not accurate, nor is there any literary or grammatical need for it. We can simply translate it as "the Passover", the same way as we translate "mishkan" as "the tabernacle" without expanding it to "tabernacle building". But I digress, and I apologize.) I'm sure that some of you will be able to offer very learned drashos about *why* the Pesach is not a korban. I do realize that there are MANY halachos where the Pesach follows different rules. If that's why the Torah chooses to avoid using the words "korban" or "yakriv" in this context, I'm okay with that. That's NOT what I want to ask in this thread. (But I don't mind a spin-off thread on that topic.) My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? It is difficult (impossible?) to find anyplace where Chazal refer to it as simply "hapesach"; they seem to have no compunction about calling it the "korban pesach". Why is that? I accept the idea that language changes over time, but technical terms - like "melacha" and "tumah" - tend to stay pretty much the same. Did the word "korban" change so much that the Pesach was not a korban in Moshe Rabenu's day, but it was indeed a korban as Chazal used the term? For extra credit, can anyone identify the era in which we did begin referring to the Pesach in this manner? The neviim? Tannaim? Amoraim? Knowing the historical context of the WhoWhereWhen, might shed light on the Why. Thanks! Akiva Miller From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 04:08:17 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:08:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> References: <8db11353-61f1-07de-36be-59b3880d8418@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 12:07 AM 3/29/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Welcome to the world of minhag. It is called the human element, that >part of the halachic world where we add our input, our flavor, that >element of "je ne sais quoi". > >The Rambam writes clearly that "minhag can forbid something that is >permitted". This is one, fairly minor, example of that idea. I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting something that is forbidden. If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted on any of the first 7 days of Pesach, when the issur of chometz is D'Oraisa? How can making Gebrokts on the 7th day of Pesach be permitted, even if one might have a guest show up this year on Friday afternoon who eats Gebrokts. According to those who do not eat Gebrokts, one is dealing with a possible issur. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 06:16:54 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:16:54 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Preparing Foods on the 7th Day of Pesach for Shabbos Message-ID: <1522329342834.55633@stevens.edu> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. When preparing for Shabbos on the seventh day of Pesach, the following question may arise: May one who eats only Shmurah Matzah on the first seven days of Pesach, but eats non-Shmurah Matzah on the eighth day, cook and bake for Shabbos using non-Shmurah Matzah? Additionally, many people who do not eat gebrochts (matzah or matzah meal which has come in contact with liquids) during Pesach, eat gebrochts on the eighth day. Can one cook food that is gebrochts on Friday, which is the seventh day of Pesach? A. At first glance it would seem that this is not permitted. The Rama (Orach Chaim 527:20) writes that one who is fasting on Yom Tov (which is permitted under certain conditions) may not cook for Shabbos utilizing an Eruv Tavshilin, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. Similarly, it would seem that one who only eats Shmurah Matzah should not be permitted to cook or bake using non-Shmura Matzah, since he cannot eat the food on Friday. However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did not bake completely. The Magen Avrohom explains that since according to the letter of the law, it is permitted to eat the dough, and it is prohibited only as a chumra (stringency), one may bake it on Yom Tov. The Maharsham writes that the same applies here. Since one is permitted to eat non-Shmurah Matzah all the days of Pesach, and eating Shmurah Matzah is only a chumra, there is no problem with cooking non-Shmurah Matzah on Yom Tov. The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:04:02 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) Message-ID: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Please see the discussions at https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 One comment is Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. And for the record if you are in Flatbush for Pesach there is a minyan on Chol Moed at the Flatbush Kollel only for those who wear tefillen. The Kollel is located on the corner of Bedford Ave and Ave K and the minyan will start at 8 am every day during Chol Moed. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From llevine at stevens.edu Thu Mar 29 08:17:32 2018 From: llevine at stevens.edu (Professor L. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:17:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] An Eruv Tavshilin Primer Message-ID: <06a77aaf20c14465ac239424bd5eb95b@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Please see https://goo.gl/SaNz9N YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:26:15 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:26:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180329162615.GB15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:04:02PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : Please see the discussions at : https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 : : One comment is : : Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. Three communities comprised the core of the Yishuva haYashan -- Sepharadim, Chabad and Talmidei haGra. Like most practices that all three share, a lack of tefillin on ch"m thereby becam minhag EY. They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. Like an Israeli in chu"l on YT sheini shel golios. : One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe... Not betzin'ah. Also, some of the KAJ community. But really, a miuta demiuta. This is just another case of others having a machloqes that differs from yours, and you championing one side rather than accepting nahara nahara upashteih. The Gra cites two sources: The Zohar (Shir haShirim daf 8) and a Behag that the AhS (OC 31:4) notes isn't in our edition. And RMF (IM OC 5:24.7) says that the Gra wasn't basing his pesaq on those two sources as much as their being no ground to permit misvara. The Rama (31:2) does obligate BUT with misgivings. He says both one should make the berakhah quietly and that one should not make a berakhah at all. The Taz notes the contradiction. But either justify my saying "with misgivings". The Behag carries such weight in Ashkenazi pesaq, that it is unsurprising that not all Ashkenazim hold like the Rama on this. As for me, I can honestly say there will be no tefillin on my left arm this ch"m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 09:02:55 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:02:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Gebrokts In-Reply-To: <62.FC.04056.A69CCBA5@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <20180329155520.GA15684@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:08:17AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: : I can see forbidding something that is permitted, but not permitting : something that is forbidden. : If those who do not eat Gebrokts are doing it, because they are : concerned about chometz, then how can making Gebrokts be permitted : on any of the first 7 days of Pesach... Um, it's only assur because of minhag. Everyone agrees that in terms of safeiq, it would be mutar. That's why it's lifnim mishuras hadin and minhag. So no one is permitting something prohibited by curtailing the minhag on day 7. They are prohibiting less of the permitted. Just as you too would make gebrochts on the last day. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:16:54PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis ... :> However, Maharasham (Ha'aros, OC 527) rules that it is permitted. He :> bases his ruling on a related ruling of the Magen Avrohom (OC 559:13). The :> Magen Avrohom permits baking dough that is stuck in the cracks of a :> utensil on Yom Tov, to prevent it from turning into Chametz, even though :> it is forbidden to eat this dough on Pesach, out of concern that it did :> not bake completely.... :> The same justification would apply to allow cooking gebrochts on the :> 7th day of Pesach (see Chazon Ish O.C. 49:15). Only in terms of cooking and hachanah. It still requires saying that gebrochts is only an issue of eating, the issur kareis, and not bal yeira'eh. Otherwise, there would be a lack of consistency allowing bal yeira'h on day 7 because one may eat gebrochts when chameitz is derabbanan, on day 8. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: I want to voice my disappointment with this year's incarnation of the gebrochts-bashing discussion. Usually we cover more of prior iterations before we start repeating things already said in this one. -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From larry62341 at optonline.net Thu Mar 29 14:32:39 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:26 PM 3/29/2018, Micha Berger wrote: >They do it betzin'ah because violating minhag hamaqom is very difficult. I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. I add that in EY on Pesach one has Sephardim eating kitniyos and rice, Chassidim not eating Gebrokts, and the non-Chassidic world eating Gebrokts but not eating kitniyos. Where is the minhag ha Makom regarding this? EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is no minhag Ha Makom in EY. Regarding tefillin, the Sephardim and the Talmidim of the GRA did not put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY and so continued to do this when they came to EY. I do not understand why Ashkenazim who put on tefillin on Chol Moed before they came to EY stopped doing this when they came to EY. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meirabi at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:57:44 2018 From: meirabi at gmail.com (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:57:44 +1100 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions Message-ID: An adopted stringency mistakenly believed to be the opinion of ones Rabbi, does not require Hataras Neder (Reb Moshe's Piskei Halacha, Rishumei Aharon by Yair Hoffman p.60) from the archives - >From R/Prof Y Levine: A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to eating Gebrokts. It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when Matzohs were thick = = = = = = It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say foundered] their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That problem was corrected and Matza Balls were welcomed back even by those who chose not to eat foods made with suspect Matza meal If there is a vestige of this today, it is not adding matza to soup or coffee it wold be with eating Matza meal cake Suggesting that Gebrochts is in some way similar to Kitniyos, the ban on egg matzah, and eating or not eating machine matzos is the disingenuous fantasy of those who wish to preserve the practice at any cost MHKBHBlessThem Best, Meir G. Rabi 0423 207 837 +61 423 207 837 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:34:39 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?cp1255?q?Tzav_=E2=80=94_In_Gratitude_for_the_Miracle_?= =?cp1255?q?of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> Message-ID: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:58:38PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : The Sefer HaChinuch writes that the miracles Hashem does are always : covered with a certain degree of 'teva', natural normality. The gematria : of God's name "Elohim" is 86. "Hateva" which means nature also equals : 86.... Actually, the inclusion of the "ha-" is question begging. : we get to know God. This is a kabbalistic and mystical avenue through : approaching God in a natural way... Rationalists can get in on it too. There is more Divine Wisdom in a universe which was set up so perfeclty that its Maker does not have to intervene and interrupt its normal operation. A number of rishonim grapple with "Why miracles?" in commentaries to the first parshios to seifer Shemos. Typical answers are to deny that miracles differ from nature (Ramban), in that both are Divine Action and both were written into creation during the initial week. Or that free will plus reward-and-punishment requires responses rather than a system. Jumping ahead in history, the Maharal says that miracles follow their own laws, and earning a miracle is a matter of which set of laws you live in. (More at and .) : Even while splitting the Sea to allow : the Children of Israel to escape the Egyptians, there was a strong eastern : wind blowing (the natural component). So, too, in regard to the altar, : we are commanded to ignite our own flame in order to camouflage the : incredible miracle of the fire descending from the heavens, thus allowing : nature to be included in the awesome event. Different people experiencing : the same occurrence will walk away with different understandings of what : has transpired. However, our own flame is camouflage. The strong east wind is that AND also reduces the gap in nature that the miracle has to violate. : There is a beautiful illustration of this idea. Imagine a child born : in the Midbar ... Joshua takes some seeds and : places them into the earth -- a seeming waste of the scant food they still : had. If one were to look into the ground and see the seeds they would : appear to be disintegrating and, at that point, appear totally useless. A : few days later, when food begins to grow from the ground, this person, : with wide eyed amazement, would scream IT'S A MIRACLE!!! Food from the : ground -- how unnatural! Clearly the wondrous Hand of Hashem is at work! That truly is a beautiful illustration. And sounds a lot like the above Maharal. : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is : always need to give thanks. Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From micha at aishdas.org Thu Mar 29 13:40:31 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The not-Korban Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180329204031.GB27465@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:25:43AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : It has come to me attention recently that the Torah never refers to : the Pesach as a Korban... : My question is this: Whatever reason it was, why the Torah avoided : using that word in this context ... why did Chazal feel differently? Maybe it is part of a bigger language question. The Torah's "Pesach" is the 14th of Nissan; the next 7 days is "Chag haMatzos". Chazal shifted the wording because our name for yamim tovim reflect what He did for us, whereas the Torah calls it by a name that reflects what of the YT is about us doing for Him. And then, when P)esach no longer refers to the time when the qorban is brought... perhaps that's why they felt it needed more explicit disambiguation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Thu Mar 29 21:10:10 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:10:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? On 3/29/2018 11:32 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > EY is collage of many different customs of Jews from all over the > world. I think that Rabbi Hamburger is correct when he says there is > no minhag Ha Makom in EY. From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 02:21:42 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:21:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: At 12:10 AM 3/30/2018, Ben Waxman wrote: >Do you really think that an Ashkenazi person who goes to a Sefardi >beit knesset can pray Nusach Ashkenaz from the amud if the kehilla >is maqpid on their nusasch? Can he claim "There's no minhag"? Same >with "Can an Ashkenazi person just walk away from the amud in his >beit knesset when he gets to Ein Kelokeinu"? No, he has to daven the Nusach of the shul or not daven for the Amud. I have seen a Chabadnic daven Maariv for the Amud at a place which says Baruch HaShem l'olam .. and not say the bracha at the end of this piece. When I chastised the fellow for this, he replied, "Well, I won't daven Maariv for the Amud here again." YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From micha at aishdas.org Fri Mar 30 05:52:17 2018 From: micha at aishdas.org (Micha Berger) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:52:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 05:32:39PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : I recall hearing a talk by Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger where he insisted : that there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. He said within 10 blocks of : here there are many shuls davening many different Nuschos. Hence : there is no minhag ha Makom in EY. Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to be designated practive by practice. On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From zev at sero.name Thu Mar 29 23:16:44 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 02:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?b?VHphdiDXkuKCrOKAnSBJbiBHcmF0aXR1ZGUgZm9yIHRo?= =?utf-8?q?e_Miracle_of_Nature?= In-Reply-To: <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> References: <1884231B-A3C4-46D6-918C-1EDCC52B4A8C@cox.net> <20180329203439.GA27465@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 29/03/18 16:34, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : 2) Among the sacrifices mentioned in this weeks parsha is the Thanksgiving > : Offering. The Medrash tells us that in the future all the sacrifices > : will be nullified, except the Thanksgiving Offering -- for there is > : always need to give thanks. > > Yeah, but I never know what to do with medrashim like that. Because we > also believe that the Torah won't change. I mean, it could mean that > chatas and asham will simply become moot or near moot, as we change our > relationship to sinning. But shelamim? "Qorban" Pesach? Olah? Tamid? The parallel maamar Chazal, that all the holidays will be nullified except Purim, is I think generally taken to mean that the weekdays will have the same kedusha as yomtov, so yomtov will no longer be special, except for Purim. So we could say something similar here, that the special kedusha that make korbanos so important in the first two BHMK will no longer stand out, and they won't evoke the feelings that they used to, except for Todah. Cf RAYK's widely misunderstood take on "ve'orvoh laH' *minchas* Yehuda", that in the future instead of the flour part of a korban being tafel to the animal part it will be reversed. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From zev at sero.name Fri Mar 30 01:05:02 2018 From: zev at sero.name (Zev Sero) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 04:05:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Not Eating Gebrochts is a Distortion of Halacha and our Traditions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29/03/18 19:57, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > It is claimed that Gebrochts is FOUNDED in the Teshuvos of important Poskim > this is untrue [it is however, found there, perhaps they meant to say > foundered] It is founded in the Alter Rebbe's teshuvah. That is why chassidim universally adopted this chumra while most others didn't. > their recommendations were for a particular problem - as was clearly > explained earlier - of Matza meal made from soft Matza that was > notoriously under-baked, and as R Micha pointed out, was not a problem > created when the Matza and water were combined during Pesach > but was an unacceptably high risk of already being Chametz That is *not* what he writes in the teshuvah. He writes that it's a problem that only arose about 20 years earlier, due to the innovation of making the matzos quickly and not spending time kneading thoroughly. An innovation he completely endorses, but says it has one unintended negative consequence, which al pi din is too slight to worry about, but because of the extra caution of Pesach one should. He is *not* talking about special matzos but about the normal ones that are for eating, and he's *not* worried that they may already be chometz. -- Zev Sero A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all zev at sero.name Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper From akivagmiller at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:50:13 2018 From: akivagmiller at gmail.com (Akiva Miller) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:50:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating before Biur Chometz Message-ID: On Erev Pesach morning, why is it that we are allowed to eat before Biur Chametz? What makes this mitzva different from so many other mitzvos, where we cannot eat until doing rhe required act? Granted that some are patur from burning their chometz, as they simply don't have any, but everyone has to say Kol Chamira, right? I ask this question particularly in light of this being such a busy day that some people really push the zmanim to the limits. I understand that Chazal did not want to interfere with people having a good chometzdik breakfast, so they could easily have made this issur begin at a late point. For example, once the fourth hour is over, "You cannot eat any more Chometz. And from this point, you can't eat anything else either, until you've disposed of whatever chometz you have left." Just wondering. Chag Kasher v'Sameach! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From larry62341 at optonline.net Fri Mar 30 08:31:27 2018 From: larry62341 at optonline.net (Prof. Levine) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 08:52 AM 3/30/2018, you wrote: >Is that a common interperation of minhag hamaqom -- that there be >a common practice in all things? I understood minhag hamaqom to >be designated practive by practice. Otherwise the concept of Minhag Ha Makom is meaningless. In Europe before the advent of Chassidus each community had its own distinct practices and there was indeed a Minhag Ha Makom. My understanding is that in Syria the Aleppo and Damascus communities had there own minhagim (different) minhagim. To me minhag ha makom means that all of the people have the same minhagim. In America I believe you have this in New Square. >On the topic of tefillin on ch"m, there is enough consensus in EY >not to wear tham, that for this one topic there is a minhag hamaqom. This is changing. From https://goo.gl/1PYXP4 Many people wear tefillin on chol hamoed in Eretz Yisroel, including some gedolim. However, some do it betzinoh so it is not so well known. One such godol is the Erlau?er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. Bekitzur, Al titosh toras imecho, keep on following your minhog and Al yisbayeish ., as the Rama says in beginning of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim. See the other comments there. >For other things? Give it time. How long did it take Jews from Provence, >Italy and elsewhere to congeal into a single minhag Ashkenaz? On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben1456 at zahav.net.il Sat Mar 31 11:38:05 2018 From: ben1456 at zahav.net.il (Ben Waxman) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 20:38:05 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Tefilin On Chol hamoed In Eretz Yisroel (and Flatbush) In-Reply-To: <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <1522335771074.14203@stevens.edu> <20180330125217.GA17459@aishdas.org> <87.BC.03752.A985EBA5@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > On the contrary, I doubt that the Chassidim will ever eat Gebrokts on > Pesach, the Sephardim will stop eating kitnyos, and the > non-Chassidic world will stop eating Gebrokts on Pesach. I have quite a few Chareidi Litvak relatives who have adopted Gebrokts. [Email #2. -micha] On 3/30/2018 5:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > This is changing. From > One such godol is the Erlau'er Rebbe. You can go in his beis medrash > and see him with tefillin. He keeps the minhogim of his zeide, the > Chasam Sofer, to wear tefillin on chol hamoed and daven nusach Ashkenaz. > There are even some minyonim where people wear tefillin on Chol > Hamoed, like a Yekkishe minyan in Bnei Brak that I know of. I would just like to point out that according to this claim (which is eight years and only the claim of one person who didn't even give his full name) we are talking about 3, maybe 5 shuls. There are 15,000 Orthodox batei kenesiot in Israel. This is hardly a wave. Ben